- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23468/2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. M.P. NORONHA (MELWIN PRAKASH NORONHAL) ADVOCATE & NOTARY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O J.M. NORONHA 2ND FLOOR, ROYAL CHAMBERS KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-575 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADV.,) AND: 1. MR. MICHAEL F. SALDANHA S/O LATE JOHN ANTHONY SALDANHA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 401, SILVER CREST 13 REST HOUSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. 2. MR. SATISH N. VAIDYA S/O NARAYAN V.A. ADULT, EDITOR OF KARAVALI ALE 400-C, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALURU-575 011. 3. SMT. ROHINI SEETHARAM W/O B.V. SEETHARAM MANAGING DIRECTOR OF Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 CHITRA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD A-400-C, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALURU-575 011. 4. B.V. SEETHARAM DIRECTOR OF KARAVALI ALE CHITRA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD A-400-C, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALURU-575 011. 5. ARADHANA PRINTERS A-400-C, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALURU-575 011 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MRS. ROHINI SEETHARAM. 6. MR. P.B. D’SA S/O LATE JOHN F.M. D’SA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS PRESIDENT PUCL KARNATAKA PAULINE, OPP ROSHNI NILAYA BISHOP COMPOUND, VALENCIA MANGALURU-575 002. 7. MR. WALTER MABEN CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA MISSION NETWORK “ELIN”, MERCARA HILL MANGALURU-575 002. 8. SRI. SURESH BHAT BAKRABAIL S/O NARAYANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS SOUHARDHA VEDHIKE R/AT. EESHA VASYAM D.NO.2-10, 776, BEJAI MANGALURU-575004. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 9. SMT. VIOLET PEREIRA W/O JOSEPH PEREIRA ADULT EDITOR, MANGLURIAN.COM NEW MILAGRES MANSION BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.3 FALNIR ROAD, HAMPANKATTA MANGALORE-575001. 10. MR. JOSEPH PEREIRA ADULT S/O MARCEL PEREIRA EDITOR, MANGALOREAN.COM NEW MILAGRES MANSION BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.3 FALNIR ROAD, HAMPANKATTA MANGALORE-575001. 11. MR. CASHMIR D’SOUZA S/O SEBASTIAN D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS SILVA GATE, HILL VIEW KULASHEKAR, PADAVU VILLAGE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU-575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH HEGDE, ADV., FOR R1 – ABSENT V/O/DTD:19.11.2018, NOTICE TO R2 TO R11 ARE D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA IN OS NO.171/2014 ON I.A.NO.19 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE R-1 & ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.03.2018 passed on I.A.No.19 in O.S.No.171/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mangaluru, D.K., (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.Cyril Prasad Pais, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.171/2014 against the respondents for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. In the said suit, the respondent No.1-defendant No.5 could not file the written statement, later an application is filed seeking leave of the Court to file the written statement by seeking to condone the delay. The said application was rejected by the trial Court, which was assailed by the defendant No.5 in W.P.No.25452/2016. This Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 allowed the said W.P.No.25452/2016. The said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 order of this Court was assailed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.35073/2016. It is submitted that when the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the defendant No.5 filed an application seeking to stay further proceedings in the suit mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the trial Court under the impugned order stayed the proceedings in suit. It is also submitted that the application filed by the defendant No.5 is without mentioning the provision of law and the said application is not accompanied with an affidavit which is in violation of the mandate of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, and without considering any of these aspects, the trial Court stayed the suit. It is contended that the Civil Appeal filed by the petitioner is disposed of and in view of the same, the impugned order of the trial Court would not survive for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 consideration and trial is required to be proceeded. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. There is no representation for the respondent No.1 when the matter is called in the morning session as well as the afternoon session. Even on 08.06.2026 and 17.06.2026 there was no representation for the respondent. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.171/2014 seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, etc., claiming under them from making/publishing defamatory statement or any statements, photos, pictures, articles relating to the petitioner-plaintiff tending to damage the reputation of the plaintiff and also sought to pay the damages of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 ₹5,50,000/-. In the said suit, the defendant No.5 could not file written statement within the stipulated time. Hence, filed an application in I.A.No.9 seeking prayer to condone the delay of 312 days in filing the written statement and sought leave of the Court to accept the written statement. The trial Court rejected the said application, which was challenged by the defendant No.5 in W.P.No.25452/2016. This Court vide order dated 23.08.2016, allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 16.03.2016 passed on I.A.No.9 and directed the trial Court to accept the written statement on record and proceed further. 6. It is required to be noticed here is that the order of this Court dated 23.08.2016 passed in W.P.No.25452/2016 was assailed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.35073/2016. Thereafter, the defendant No.5 in the said suit filed an application before the trial Court seeking prayer to stay further proceedings in the suit during the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 pendency of the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.35073/2016. The said application was allowed by the trial Court under the impugned order. What is required to be noticed here is that the application filed by defendant No.5 does not indicate under which provision of law the said application is filed. It is also clear that the said application filed by the defendant No.5 seeking to stay the further proceedings in O.S.171/2014 is not accompanied with an affidavit or the memorandum of facts. However, the trial Court allowed the said application and stayed the further proceedings in O.S.171/2014. 7. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, ‘CPC’) contemplates the stay of the suit on certain circumstances. The aforesaid Section provides that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court. 8. It is required to be noticed that between the same parties there are no two suits are pending in which the issue is directly and substantially the same issue between the same parties. In the case on hand, the suit is for prohibitory injunction filed by the petitioner against the respondents and arising out of the said suit, on an interlocutory application, an order is passed which is the subject matter in the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.35073/2016. Hence, it cannot be considered that the issue involved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal and the suit are directly and substantially in issue in the suit as well as the Special Leave to Appeal. Hence, Section 10 of the CPC has no application to the case on hand. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 9. Be that as it may. The trial Court under the impugned order stayed the further proceedings solely on the ground that the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.35073/2016 is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the aforesaid SLA is disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.01.2025. Hence, in my considered view, the trial Court is required to proceed with the suit without any difficulty in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.01.2025 passed in the aforesaid SLA. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 17.03.2018 passed on I.A.No.19 in O.S.No.171/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mangaluru, D.K., is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.19 filed by - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32410 W.P. No.23468/2018 respondent No.1-defendant No.5 is rejected. iii. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The trial Court shall consider the early disposal of the suit, taking note of the fact that the suit is of the year 2014. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28