Smt. Roopa Devi vs. Mr. B. S. Amarnath

Held

The High Court held that the trial court is bound to pass orders on interlocutory applications within a reasonable time. It noted that while I.A.No.I appeared not to have been pressed, I.A.No.III had been filed, objections were filed by the respondents, and the trial court had heard the application and posted it for orders. However, no orders had been passed by the trial court as of the date of the writ petition. The Court found merit in the petitioners' grievance that the delay in passing orders was unreasonable, especially considering the statutory liabilities involved. Therefore, the High Court directed the trial court to pass orders on I.A.No.III in accordance with law within a reasonable time and to proceed further with the suit expeditiously. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions.

Facts

The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in a civil suit (O.S.No.4719/2020), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking a direction to the trial court to pass orders on two interlocutory applications (I.A.Nos.I and III). The suit's prayer was for a direction to the second defendant to activate the Firm's bank account. I.A.No.I was filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to operate the Firm account. Subsequently, I.A.No.III was filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking a direction to release funds from the Firm account to pay GST and other taxes due from the Firm. The petitioners' grievance was that the trial court, after hearing I.A.No.III, had not passed any orders, despite the urgency due to their liability to pay statutory dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Section 227 of CPC, should direct the trial court to pass orders on I.A.Nos.I and III in O.S.No.4719/2020 expeditiously? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that they are liable to pay statutory dues, including GST and other taxes, and therefore, it is essential for the trial court to pass orders on I.A.No.III to enable the release of funds from the Firm account for this purpose. They highlighted that the trial court had heard I.A.No.III and posted it for orders, but had failed to do so within a reasonable time. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents/defendants in relation to the prayer for direction to pass orders on the interlocutory applications.