Judicial Officers May Err Sometimes, But Shouldn't Pass Inconsistent Orders: Karnataka High Court

While setting aside an order passed by the trial court staying proceedings in a suit filed for recovery of money, the Karnataka High Court held that while a judicial officer may err and pass illegal orders, he should not pass inconsistent orders which would undermine the faith of the general public in the institution.Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, “The courts while rendering judgments or passing interim orders should maintain consistency. Judicial discipline and propriety largely depends on such consistency and the purpose and object behind the same is to prevent discrimination and arbitrariness. Otherwise, there is scope of being accused of being partial, unfair and discriminatory.”It added “A judicial officer may have a different view on a point for consideration, but on the same point in the same proceeding if an order is already passed earlier, he is bound to maintain consistency.”M/s Sree Gururaja Enterprises Private Limited, had approached the court seeking to set aside the order passed by the trial court which had allowed an application filed by respondent under section 10 of code of civil procedure, and stayed the proceedings.Two suits were filed for recovery of money. However, the cause of action in both the suits were different. The petitioner had earlier filed an application seeking to club both the suits as he was defendant in one of the suits the same came to be rejected. Following which the trial court had framed additional issues and partly decreed the suit. The same came to be challenged by the plaintiff therein (M/s CIMEC Enterprises Engineers and Contractors, defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner), before the High Court and proceedings are pending.Notably, the defendant nos.1 to 5 in the suit filed by the petitioner had earlier filed an application under section 151 of CPC with a prayer to stay further proceedings contending that issues framed in both the suits are substantially the same and O.S.No.6942/2011 being the subsequent suit (filed by petitioner), further proceedings in the said suit is required to be stayed. The said application was rejected.However, ignoring the same the trial court passed the impugned order on the application filed by J.R Srinivasa, who is defendant no. 6 in the suit.The petitioner argued that the principle of res judicata would apply even in respect of orders passed in a pending proceedings and therefore, the trial court was not justified in passing the order impugned. The respondents opposed the plea.The bench on going through the records, said “The trial court has held that earlier application seeking similar relief was filed by defendant nos.1 to 5 whereas the present application is filed by defendant no. 6 and therefore, second application can be maintained. The said approach of the trial court, in my considered opinion, is bad in law.”It stated that “The finding recorded on the earlier application filed seeking similar relief is binding on all the parties to the suit and it cannot be said otherwise, unless the relief sought for in the application is privy to the party making such an application, if not, any order made during the course of proceedings of the suit, which is general in nature, shall be binding on all the parties to the suit.”The court emphasised that section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. In the present case, the whole of the subject matter in both the suits are not identical.Following which, it held “I am of the opinion that the trial court was not at all justified in passing the order impugned and therefore, the said order cannot be sustained.”Appearance: Advocate Madhukar M Deshpande for PetitionerAdvocate Ananditha S for Advocate Kiran V Ron for C/R-6;Advocates S Shivashankar, S Subramanya for R-1 TO R-5. Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 436Case Title: M/S SREE GURURAJA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S CIMEC ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS & Others Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 36643 OF 2018.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Judicial Officers May Err Sometimes, But Shouldn't Pass Inconsistent Orders: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

Judicial Officers May Err Sometimes, But Shouldn't Pass Inconsistent Orders: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers