Skip to content


C. Venkatiah and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. Nos. 18 and 19 of 1967
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Kant177; AIR1971Mys177; (1971)1MysLJ103
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantC. Venkatiah and anr.
RespondentThe State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.
Appellant AdvocateH.B. Datar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Javali and ;S.G. Bhat, Advs.
Disposition Appeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....provides for proof of a document where no attesting witness is found. the provision of section 69 contemplates that, the handwriting of atleast one attesting witness and the signature of the person executing the document is required to be identified and proved through the witnesses. the proof of handwriting and/or the signature of a scribe is not the stipulation under section 69 of the act. on facts held, the evidence of dw.3, merely identifying the handwriting and also the signature of his father, the scribe of the will is of no legal consequence and does not meet the stipulation under section 69. .....as withdrawn is likely to be interpreted to their prejudice. 2. the question involved in the writ petitions was one of a right to promotion on the basis of certain rules or amendment to the rules. a certain order was made in favour of the petitioners. thereupon two persons filed writ petitions for recalling the previous order on the ground that the same has been made in their absence in spite of the fact that they were vitally interested in the question of promotion debated in the writ petitions. their contention was accepted by this court. the previous orders were recalled and the writ petitions revived for fresh hearing after impleading new parties. while doing so, the court made an observation which is clarificatory in nature reading, until these two writ petitions are disposed.....
Judgment:

A. Narayana Pai, C.J.

1. These are unnecessary interlocutory applications which would not have been filed but for the fact that there is some apprehension in the mind of Mr. Javali's clients that an order of dismissal made by this court in the said two writ petitions as withdrawn is likely to be interpreted to their prejudice.

2. The question involved in the writ petitions was one of a right to promotion on the basis of certain rules or amendment to the rules. A certain order was made in favour of the petitioners. Thereupon two persons filed writ petitions for recalling the previous order on the ground that the same has been made in their absence in spite of the fact that they were vitally interested in the question of promotion debated in the writ petitions. Their contention was accepted by this court. The previous orders were recalled and the writ petitions revived for fresh hearing after impleading new parties. While doing so, the court made an observation which is clarificatory in nature reading, until these two writ petitions are disposed of afresh as above stated we direct the promotions of these petitioners in these two writ petitions which have now since been made will not be disturbed.'

3. Subsequently, the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 18 and 19 of 1967 filed a memo for withdrawing the same, whereupon the court made the following order:--

'Petitioners' counsel files a memo that he withdraws the writ petitions in view of a direction issued by the Government to the effect that promotions will be made without reference to the impugned rules. The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.'

4. The apprehensions of the present applicants who seek a review of the said order are that the revival of the interim order made when the previous order of final disposal of writ petitions 18 and 19 of 1967 was recalled as (extracted above) is likely to be taken advantage of by the petitioners in the said two writ petitions to the prejudice of the present applicants. That is the only point pressed before us by Mr. Javali for review.

5. Mr. S. G. Bhat, whose client is also in a similar position, argues in support of Mr. Javali's contention suggesting that because the terms of the memo have been, as he says, incorporated in the order of the court, the normal rule that interim orders come to an end when the main matter is disposed of may not apply with full force, with what other modifications or results, he has not clarified.

6. It appears to us too obvious for argument that when a main matter comes to an end, all interim orders, which are expressly made in terms which keep them in force only till the disposal of the main matter, must and do come to an end, unless the very terms of the order are such as to keep it alive collaterally to the main matter. Interim orders are only interim orders and are made in aid of the ultimate relief a party is likely or is expected to set, at the final disposal of the main matter.

7. The argument that the terms of the memo are set out is equally beside the point because, the effective order is one of dismissal, the reasons stated for dismissal being withdrawal of the petition. The Court makes no executable order. The reason which persuaded the petitioner to withdraw his case is immaterial from the point of view of the court. All that the court notes is that a petitioner who has come to it seeking a certain relief tells the court that he does not want the relief from the Court and seeks permission to withdraw his case. In suits a withdrawal becomes effective immediately because of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of writ petitions which are proceedings of a special nature, permission of the court is sought for withdrawal because, quite apart from the petitioner seeking any relief, the court may act suo motu under Article 227. It is with a view to see that the court is not unwittingly made to forget the duty which Article 227 may place upon it in the circumstances of the case, that the court insists upon permission being sought before a writpetition could be withdrawn. But once it is permitted to be withdrawn there is no longer any prayer before the court and the parties to the writ petition are relegated to the position which they occupied before the writ petition was presented.

8. In view of these undoubted principles, I. As. for review in these writ petitions have to be and are hereby dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //