- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2025 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 2. N JAYARAM REDDY, S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT SURYAKANTHI ROAD, K.V LAYOUT, K R PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036. 3. N ASHOK REDDY, S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 4. N SURESH REDDY, S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/A: MARAGONDANAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036. 4. MUNIREDDY, S/O. LATE NADUPANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A MARAGONDANAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036. 5. SHAKUNTALAMMA, D/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY, W/O. JAYASHEEL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A: KITHAGANOOR VILLAGE, BEDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3; SRI .G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE W.P. No. 18360/2021 DATED 24.02.2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WRIT PETITION No. 18360/2021, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 4 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. This is an intra court appeal assailing the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18360 of 2021 dated 24.02.2025. 2. Being aggrieved by the order in the said writ petition, respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the said petition have approached this Court in the present appeal, contending that the learned Single Judge could not have dealt with the matter on the merits when the grievance of the writ petitioner was only in respect of the dismissal of the petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 No. 535 of 2016 dated 30.03.2021 on the question of limitation. 3. The factual background is that, the respondent No. 4-Munireddy [writ petitioner] was owning 01 acre in Survey No. 55. Another portion in the said Survey No.55 measuring 2 acres was owned by the appellants herein. The appellants got the land measuring 02 acres converted into non- agriculture by submitting an application to the Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.4-Munireddy contended that the boundaries shown by the appellants were not correct and therefore, he approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ['Appellate Tribunal' for short] against the conversion of the 02 acres of land. The Appellate Tribunal found that his appeal is beyond the period of limitation and therefore, it dismissed the petition without going into the merits of the contentions. Therefore, respondent No.4, Munireddy filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 4. The learned Single Judge observed that writ petitioner/respondent No.4-Munireddy had also approached the Civil Court seeking relief of injunction in OS No. 1581 of 2015. In the said suit, he had pleaded that he came to know about the conversion of 02 acres of land by the appellants only on 25.01.2016, when written statement was filed by the appellants herein. Therefore, the observation of the Appellate Tribunal that the petition was hit by the law of limitation is incorrect and as such, the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal was set at naught. 5. The operative portion of the order in Writ Petition No. 18360/2021 reads as below: "i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. iii. The matter is remitted back to the KAT for fresh consideration on its merits. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 iv. The KAT is directed to conduct a spot inspection or secure survey report of the subject property before adjudicating upon the validity of the conversion order. The determination of the conversion order's legality shall depend on the actual location of the east-west road in relation to the properties of the petitioner and private respondents No.4 to 8. v. The Tribunal must either conduct a local inspection or obtain a survey report from the jurisdictional ADLR to determine the exact location of the east-west road. If the inspection or survey establishes that the road serves as a boundary dividing the properties of both the petitioner and the private respondents, Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders. vi. However, if the inspection reveals that the east-west road does not abut the property of private respondents No.4 to 8, the KAT shall pass appropriate orders by reassessing the validity of the conversion order. vii. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they shall appear before the KAT on 18.03.2025, without awaiting any further notice. viii. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal by the KAT, both parties are directed to maintain the status quo as of today, and no further construction or creation of third-party rights shall be undertaken. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 xi. The KAT shall adjudicate the matter independently, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the course of this order. x. All contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration before the KAT." 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, particularly, para v to viii of the operative portion referred above, the appellants have approached this Court in appeal. 7. The learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar, along with Sri Saravana S., appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants are essentially prejudiced by the order of the learned Single Judge so far as granting the injunction overlooking the Civil Court’s orders where an order of injunction in favour of the respondents was rejected twice by separate orders. He submitted that the order of conversion was challenged by Munireddy before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 535 of 2016, after a period of 3 years 2 months and 26 days, the Appellate Tribunal found that the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and had rightly rejected the application in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 its exercise of the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 8. Further, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that learned Single Judge should have refrained from making any observations on merits or expressing views on the merits which could prejudice the Appellate Tribunal in giving its finding. Learned Single Judge makes several observations on the merits and concludes by issuing directions to the Appellate Tribunal to pass an order by getting the land surveyed through ADLR, but without being influenced by the observations. 9. It is further contended that it is trite that when a case is remanded, the appellate court sends back the matter to the Trial Court for a reconsideration, the court should refrain from making observations or expressing views on merits. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment in the case of Surendra G. Shankar and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 Another Vs. Esque Finamark Private Limited, and others1 wherein it was observed as below: "8. We have heard Mr. Vinay Navare for the appellants and Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy for the respondents. Although multiple submissions were raised from both sides touching upon the merits of the case, we do not deem it necessary to refer to them as the present appeals can be allowed on a short ground, which is, that the order impugned before the High Court was of refusal to condone the delay in preferring the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. Once the High Court opined that in normal circumstances the delay ought to have been condoned, it ought not to have commented upon the merits of the orders dated 23.07.2019 and 16.10.2019, particularly, when the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai had not dealt with the correctness of those orders. In such circumstances, the High Court should have set aside the order rejecting the delay condonation application, condoned the delay and restored the appeals on the file of the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai for consideration on merits." (Emphasis by us) 10. Further, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submit that respondent No.4- Munireddy herein had filed Civil Suit in OS No. 1581 of 2015 against the 1 2025 SCC Online SC 134 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 appellants and the competent Civil Court had already adjudicated the issue and refused injunction twice. Therefore, the Court in a collateral proceedings injuncting the parties is perverse and thereby, restraining further constructions and alienation and to maintain status quo till disposal of the matter finally by the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable. It is submitted that the order of refusal of injunction in civil suit twice was on merits and has attained finality and the principles of res judicata is given a complete go bye by the learned Single Judge. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and another2, wherein by relying on the judgment in the case of Thoday Vs. Thoday (1964) 1 ALL ER 341; it was observed in Para 30, 31 and 32 as below: "30. Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to a determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If such an issue is decided against him, he would be estopped from raising 2 (2005) 1 SCC 787 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 the same in the latter proceeding. The doctrine of res judicata creates a different kind of estoppel viz. estoppel by accord. 31. In a case of this nature, however, the doctrine of "issue estoppel" as also "cause of action estoppel" may arise. In Thoday [(1964) 1 All ER 341 : (1964) 2 WLR 371 : 1964 P 181 (CA)] Lord Diplock held: (All ER p. 352 B-D) "…cause of action estoppel, is that which prevents a party to an action from asserting or denying, as against the other party, the existence of a particular cause of action, the non-existence or existence of which has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation between the same parties. If the cause of action was determined to exist i.e. judgment was given on it, it is said to be merged in the judgment.... If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam." 32. The said dicta was followed in Barber v. Staffordshire County Council [(1996) 2 All ER 748 (CA)]. A cause of action estoppel arises where in two different proceedings identical issues are raised, in which event, the latter proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with similarly as was done in the previous proceedings. In such an event the bar is absolute in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 relation to all points decided save and except allegation of fraud and collusion. [See C. (A Minor) v. Hackney London Borough Council [(1996) 1 All ER 973 : (1996) 1 WLR 789 (CA)].]" 11. In the case of Prakash Narain Sharma Vs. Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society Limited3, the Supreme Court had held as under: "7. ……… We do not agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court that a civil court cannot under any circumstances entertain a civil suit in respect of proceedings pending before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Even where exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is statutorily provided, still on availability of requisite grounds the civil court can entertain a civil suit on well-defined parameters settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P (AIR 1969 SC 78). In any case we are not prepared to subscribe to the view of the Division Bench that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies could have ignored the order of the civil court as not binding on him in view of the provisions contained in Sections 93(3), 93(1)(c) and 60 of the Act. It will be a dangerous proposition to be laid down as one of law that any individual or authority can ignore the order of the civil court by assuming authority upon itself to 3 (2002) 7 SCC 46 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 decide that the order of the civil court is one by coram non judice." 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 Sri G.B. Nandish Gowda, defends the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, contending that there was a fraud played by the appellants before the Appellate Tribunal by representing that the road adjoining Survey No. 55, is abutting the boundary. He contends that the conversion of the usage of the land to non agriculture by respondent No. 4 was much prior. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, Munireddy, submits that he had approached the Tribunal as soon as he came to know about the conversion order and in fact, the conversion order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner was including 01 acre of land which was under his cultivation. The Appellants, in fact, had misled the Deputy Commissioner by showing wrong boundary and therefore, the said fact having been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, it was - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to direct the Appellate Tribunal as per para iv to ix of the operative portion of the impugned order. 14. It is relevant to note that when the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal in so far as the limitation is concerned, is not sustainable in as much as the respondent No. 4 Munireddy came to know about the conversion of the 2 acres of land only when the appellants filed their written statement in the injunction suit viz., OS No.1581/2015, we find that there being no other material to show that the respondent No.4, Munireddy was in the knowledge of conversion of land into non-agriculture, the Appellate Tribunal fell into error by taking the date of the conversion order as the starting point of limitation. Therefore, the said conclusion of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. 15. The law as laid down in the case of Surendra G.Shankar and Another and Bhanu Kumar Jain (supra) make it clear that once the Court comes to the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 conclusion that the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal on the score of limitation, it was not apposite on the part of the Court to consider the merits as the Tribunal had not considered the matter on the merits. There was no such issue that was before the learned Single Judge on merits of the case. The question regarding the grant of injunction was already on the file of the Civil Court. 16. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified. The direction to set-aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the appellants' appeal on the ground of limitation are sustained. However, other directions and observations made by the learned Single Judge are set-aside. 17. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to consider afresh all rights and contentions of the appellants on merits. 18. The interim order of status-quo as obtained on 25.07.2016, shall continue to operate till disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27758-DB WA No. 562 of 2025 19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36