Smt.S Harshini vs. Smt. P Sunitha
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri S.Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Krishna Murthy V. for petitioner and Sri K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.Nagarajulu Naidu for caveator- respondent No.1. 2. Parties to the petitions shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
This petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 to quash the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed on IA.No.22 filed under Section 151 of CPC in Com.O.S.No.745/2023 by LXXXVIII Additional City Civil HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972 and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (CCH-89).
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking following reliefs: "WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a Judgment and decree a) Of directing the defendant to quit, deliver and vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property. b) To pay arrears of Rent of Rs.4,94,23,242/- as on 31.07.2022 with periodical enhancement as agreed to in the Lease Deed dated 09.04.2015 with interest of Rs.18% on the aforesaid amount till realization. c) To pay a sum of Rs.36,72,500/- towards the prevailing Service Tax of and presently GST of Rs.1,25,84,349/- together with interest at the rate of 18% till realization. d) For damages at the rate of Rs 15,00,000 per month from the date of the notice 10.08.2022 till date of vacating the suit schedule property; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972 e) Pass such other judgment or decree as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. f) Award cost of this suit in the circumstances stated above and in the interest of Justice and equity."
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.22 under Section 151 of CPC seeking release of amount deposited by defendant No.1 towards rent. The said application came to be allowed and it was ordered to release the amount of Rs.2,40,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on furnishing an indemnity bond that in the event the Court orders to refund the said amount, she would deposit the same in the Court.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner- defendant No.1 is before this Court.
It is the contention of learned senior counsel - Sreevatsa appearing for Respondent No.1 that the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed on I.A. No.22 is perverse, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. He brought to the notice of the Court the order dated HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972
2024 passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.13, which reads as under:
"I.A. No.13 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC is allowed and defendant No.1 is directed to deposit amount of Rs.10 lakhs per month (equivalent to admitted rent) from the date of suit till date of disposal of the suit.
It is made clear that, any amount so deposited shall be adjusted towards damages/mesne profits or arrears of rent which may be ultimately awarded in the suit and in case, no such decree is made in favour of the plaintiff, then the said amount shall be refunded to the defendant No.
The defendant No.1 is directed to deposit the above amount from date of suit till upto date within period of four weeks from today and to continue to deposit the above amount during the pendency of the suit."
1 Therefore, it is contended by learned senior counsel that any amount deposited by the petitioner - 1st defendant shall be adjusted towards damages/mesne HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972 profits or arrears of rent, which may be ultimately awarded in the suit and in case, no such decree is made in favour of the plaintiff, then the said amount shall be refunded to the defendant No.1. 7.2 It is also contended by learned senior counsel that the petitioner-1st defendant challenged the order dated 23.4.2024 passed on I.A. No.13 before this Court in W.P. No.20403/24 and connected matters and this Court disposed of the said writ petitions by an order dated 4th September 2024, wherein at paragraph-11 it is held as under:
"
Consequently, the writ petitions stand disposed of while permitting the petitioner/ defendant no.1 to deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the Commercial Court within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly."
3 It is contended by learned senior counsel that the order dated 23.4.2024 passed by the trial Court has HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972 merged with the order passed by this Court. When the order dated 23.4.2024 passed on I.A. No.13 having not been modified or reversed, it would not lie for the plaintiff to file a separate application seeking release of the amount. The trial Court without taking into consideration the order passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.13, erroneously allowed I.A. No.22 and ordered to release a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner - 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff on furnishing the indemnity bond. He contends that the entire approach of the trial Court is contrary to law and the orders passed by the trial Court as well as this Court.
4 Learned senior counsel further contends that petitioner/1st defendant has filed counter-claim and her claim needs to be heard on merits and during the pendency of the same, the trial Court ordering for release of the amount on furnishing indemnity bond, is not proper. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is perverse, illegal and needs to be set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972
5 It is also contended by learned senior counsel that the petitioner- 1st defendant has paid a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- as advance amount and the 1st respondent - plaintiff is enjoying the same from 9.4.2025 till date and the same has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court.
6 On these grounds, learned senior counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order and consequently allow the petition.
Per contra, Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel - Sri G. Nagarajulu Naidu for 1st respondent/plaintiff contends that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 is the tenant and absolutely there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. It is also seen that a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/- has been deposited by defendant No.1 in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. It is also not disputed that HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972 the 1st defendant has made a counter-claim for damages of Rs.10 crores against the plaintiff. It is also seen that the trial Court while passing the impugned order has taken cognizance of the earlier order dated 23.4.2024 passed on I.A. No.13, which is now relied by learned counsel for defendants. By an order dated 23.4.2024 passed on I.A. No.13, the trial Court made it clear that any amount deposited by the 1st defendant shall be adjusted towards damages, mesne profits, arrears of rent, which may be ultimately awarded in the suit and in case no such decree is made in favour of the plaintiff, then the amount shall be refunded to the defendants. The trial Court having taken cognizance of the fact of earlier order, has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the amount and ordered for release of the amount, on furnishing of indemnity bond by the plaintiff. Infact, the 1st defendant is still due of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- as per the order passed on I.A. No.13, which is yet to be paid and the same is not deposited. Merely because the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972 1st defendant has filed counter-claim seeking damages, it is not proper to stop the plaintiff from withdrawing or utilizing the amount deposited towards rent.
1 On these grounds, learned senior counsel contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the petition and consequently affirm the order passed by the trial Court.
Having heard learned senior counsels on either side, the point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is:
"Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court is perverse or illegal and requires to be set aside ?
Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant No.
The defendant No.1 was the tenant under plaintiff for a monthly rent of Rs.10,00,000/-. Though there are several allegations and counter- HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972 allegations against each other with regard to status of the property, nature of the property and also with regard to property being subsequently developed by the 1st defendant, the same would be decided in the suit after completion of the trial. The point that arises for consideration is whether the amount deposited by the 1st defendant and ordered to be released in favour of the plaintiff is to be sustained or not ?
The trial Court has taken note of the earlier order dated 23.4.2024 on I.A. No.13 and being aware of the same, passed the impugned order for release of Rs.2,40,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on furnishing indemnity bond that in the event Court orders to refund the said amount, she would deposit the same in the Court. The fact remains that the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit schedule property and defendant no.1 is the tenant. It is also not in dispute that the 1st defendant has made a counter-claim seeking damages to an extent of Rs.10 crores, which merely cannot stop the plaintiff from HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972 withdrawing or utilizing the amount deposited towards rent, based on which, the 1st defendant is presently continuing in the suit schedule property. Infact, it is the legal right of the plaintiff to withdraw the amount deposited by the 1st defendant towards rent. The counter- claim of the petitioner/1st defendant needs to be heard and decided on merits. If at all, she succeeds, she would be entitled to the damages as claimed in the counter-claim. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the order dated 23.4.2024 passed on I.A. No.13 and the said order would not restrict the plaintiff from claiming the amount by a separate application. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the trial Court rightly passed the impugned order.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48972 O R D E R
i) The writ petition is dismissed. ii) Respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit before the trial Court. However, she shall follow the strict directions issued by the trial Court with regard to indemnity bond. Ordered accordingly. (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE
Paras 1 to 5 ..CPN Paras 6 to end .. GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.