Case Name: MR. RANGASWAMY vs. MR. RAMESH and SMT. PRATHIBA
Case Number: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2826 of 2024 (AA).
Dated On: May 2, 2024.
Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Mr. Rangaswamy, represented by his advocate Mr. Harsha D Joshi, initiated legal proceedings against Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba, represented by their advocate Mr. Yogesh V. Kote. The dispute appears to revolve around certain orders passed in AA.No.76/2023 by the 17 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru CCH-16, on March 4, 2024. Mr. Rangaswamy lodged an appeal challenging the specific orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023. The first order, dismissed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC, appears to have been unfavourable to Mr. Rangaswamy’s interests. Conversely, the second order, allowed under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, might have favoured the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba. Prior to filing this appeal, Mr. Rangaswamy lodged a writ petition, W.P.No.9500/2024 [GM-CPC], challenging the same order. The High Court disposed of this writ petition on April 2, 2024, granting Mr. Rangaswamy permission to convert it into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, now identified as M.F.A.No.2817/2024. This conversion suggests that the issues raised in the writ petition were to be addressed through the appeal process. Upon considering the circumstances and the previous conversion of the writ petition into M.F.A.No.2817/2024, the High Court determined that the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, lacked basis for maintenance. As a result, the High Court disposed of this appeal, reserving the liberty for Mr. Rangaswamy to pursue the appeal in M.F.A.No.2817/2024.
ISSUES
- Were the orders on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023 legally sound?
- Conversion of Writ Petition: What are the implications of converting the original writ petition into M.F.A.No.2817/2024?
- Maintainability of Current Appeal: Is MFA No. 2826 of 2024 justified given the conversion and disposal of the writ petition by the High Court?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
- Section 151: Deals with the inherent powers of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2: Pertains to temporary injunctions, which may be granted to restrain the defendant from committing acts that would cause injury to the plaintiff.
- Order 39 Rule 4: Concerns the court’s power to grant temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Mr. Rangaswamy, through his advocate Mr. Harsha D Joshi, contested the orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023. He argued that the dismissal of IA.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC was unjust and prejudicial to his case. Additionally, he disputed the allowance of IA.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, suggesting that it was not in accordance with the facts or the law. Mr. Rangaswamy aimed to overturn the adverse order (IA.No.1) and challenge the favourable order (IA.No.2) granted to the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba. His contention was likely centred on demonstrating errors in the lower court’s decision-making process or misinterpretation of the law. It’s important to note that Mr. Rangaswamy initially pursued legal recourse through a writ petition, W.P.No.9500/2024 [GM-CPC]. However, this petition was converted into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, M.F.A.No.2817/2024, by the High Court. This conversion indicates Mr. Rangaswamy’s intention to challenge the same orders through a different legal avenue, suggesting his determination to seek redress for perceived injustices. In summary, Mr. Rangaswamy, as the appellant, contested the validity of the orders issued in AA.No.76/2023, aiming to reverse the unfavourable decision against him and challenge the favourable decision for the respondents. His contentions likely revolved around demonstrating errors or inconsistencies in the lower court’s rulings and seeking a fair resolution to the dispute.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondents likely argued that the orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023 were just and lawful. They might have contended that the dismissal of IA.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC was warranted based on the facts and evidence presented in court. Similarly, they may have justified the allowance of IA.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, asserting that it was in accordance with the law and supported by the merits of the case. Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba likely disputed the appellant’s allegations of injustice or error in the lower court’s decisions. They might have presented counter arguments to refute the appellant’s contentions, attempting to demonstrate the correctness and validity of the orders challenged by the appellant. Given that one of the orders was in their favour, the respondents might have emphasised the importance of upholding the decision that favoured them (IA.No.2). They would likely have argued for the preservation of any advantage gained through the lower court’s rulings, asserting their right to the relief granted to them. In response to the appellant’s challenge, the respondents likely sought the dismissal of the appeal (MFA No. 2826 of 2024) on grounds such as lack of merit or procedural irregularities. They may have urged the court to uphold the orders issued in their favour by the lower court and reject the appellant’s attempts to overturn them. In summary, the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba, likely defended the validity of the lower court’s orders, opposed the appellant’s claims of injustice, emphasised the importance of preserving any advantage gained through the rulings, and requested the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court’s analysis and judgement appear to be straightforward. The court noted that the appellant, Mr. Rangaswamy, had initially filed a writ petition challenging the same orders that he now seeks to appeal against. The High Court disposed of this writ petition by permitting its conversion into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, which was numbered as M.F.A.No.2817/2024.
The court recognized that this conversion indicated Mr. Rangaswamy’s intent to pursue his grievances through the appellate process rather than through a writ petition. As a result, the court found that the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, cannot be maintained. It held that since Mr. Rangaswamy had already addressed the issues through M.F.A.No.2817/2024, the present appeal lacked a basis for continuation.
In light of this analysis, the court disposed of the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, with liberty reserved for Mr. Rangaswamy to prosecute the appeal in M.F.A.No.2817/2024. This disposition indicates that the court recognized the procedural history of the case and deemed it appropriate for Mr. Rangaswamy to pursue his grievances through the converted Miscellaneous First Appeal.
In summary, the court’s analysis focused on the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the conversion of the writ petition into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, and its judgement reflected a pragmatic approach to the resolution of the appeal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani
