JAGADGURU MURUGARAJENDRA BRUHANMUT Vs. MALLIKARJUN SWAMY HIREMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners being the defendants in a representative suit in O.S.No.5057/2007 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the order dated 26.10.2007 on IA No.1, order dated 07.06.2008 on IA No.3, order dated 18.06.2008 on IA for recalling the order dated 07.06.2008 and also the order dated 18.06.2008 on IA No.4 for expunging of their alleged consent all made by the learned XXIVth Additional City Civil Judge, (CCH-6), Bengaluru. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petitions.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the order dated 26.10.2007 unilaterally allowing respondent- plaintiffs' IA No.1 for grant of leave for filing the suit in representative capacity is bad and the rejection of petitioners' application for recalling the said order is also bad and further more, the order dated 18.06.2008 for recalling the order dated 26.10.2007 is also bad and that the earlier applications could not have been rejected wrongly assuming the consent of the petitioners. In any event, no consent having been given, the Court could not have set down the issue as to maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue on wrong assumptions.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submit that all the three impugned orders have not caused any prejudice to the petitioners even if it is demonstrated that they had not given consent as alleged in the impugned order; whatever be these orders, the petitioners can lay a challenge thereto if and when they suffer a decree, as is provided under Order XLIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908. He further contends that the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being too narrow, cannot be invoked for invalidating interlocutory orders when an effective and alternate remedy is available after the determination of the suit.