Udupi Kasaragodu Transmission Limited v. Smt Lalitha Shetty

Order VII Rule therein enumerates the circumstances in which the trial court may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a deemed decree which is appealable before the High Court under Section 96 of the Code. This statutory scheme cannot be upended by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of plaint.

¶11In the present case, High Court has supervened the provisions of the Code when it rejected the plaint on the ground it was barred by law. In doing so, the High Court not only substituted itself as the court of first instance but also rendered nugatory a valuable right to appeal available to the appellant had the issue been adjudicated by the trial court in the first place.

¶12We are conscious appellate remedy against rejection of plaint is not available if the High Court had in its revisional jurisdiction 5 In short, 'the Code' 6 Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society,

(2019) 9 SCC 538 reversed the order of trial court and rejected the plaint. In Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers7, this Court observed as follows:-

"31. No doubt rejection of a plaint is a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2)CPC and an appeal lies from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from a decision of such court. However, it must be borne in mind that when a Revisional Court rejects a plaint, in substance, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 is being allowed. Under such circumstances, the remedy by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution could be availed and Respondent 1/the plaintiff has resorted to the said remedy in the instant case; although if the plaint had been rejected by the trial court i.e.

court of original jurisdiction, it would have resulted in a right of appeal under Section 96 CPC."

¶13These observations in Frost (supra) are not relevant for the matter in issue as the High Court in the present case had not exercised its supervisory power to correct a jurisdictional error of the trial court but usurped its original jurisdiction to reject the plaint.

¶14Procedural law provides the necessary legal infrastructure on which edifice of rule of law is built. Short-circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes is an undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary. Such impulses rendering procedural safeguards and substantive rights otiose, subvert certainty and consistency in law and need to be discouraged."

¶9Relying on the aforementioned judgments, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court

¶10Further, it is submitted that, as per Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, there should be a contract between the plaintiffs and the infrastructure Company. Only then Section 20A of the Act applicable. It is contended that this writ petition ought not to have been entertained. It is further contended that the Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the Trial Court has no jurisdiction, the defendants have come up with an appropriate application. Likewise, if the plaintiff or the

defendants seek any relief, they have come up with an appropriate application before the Trial Court.

¶11In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that the interim injunction was granted in March 2026. They brought all these matters to the Court's notice by filing a written statement, and the Court was required to consider whether the objections were filed within 30 days. However, without considering the objections or the application, the Court repeatedly extended the interim order. As a result, the entire infrastructure project, which is in the larger interest, has been stopped. Hence, they have come before this Court seeking a direction, where the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over all Courts within the state.

¶12It is submitted that several writ petitions have been filed before the Court with respect to the very same project, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has represented the parties in those matters. In all the matters, the Court has categorically held that the parties are entitled to compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act and that they

cannot obstruct the implementation of the said project, which is in the larger public interest.

¶13He relied on Section 41 and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, which provides that an injunction may be refused if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of a relevant facility related thereto or of the service that is the subject matter of such project.

¶14Relying on this, it is submitted that the Court, though it did not consider the fact that the Court has no jurisdiction, but at the same time, when it is interfering with the execution of an infrastructure project, the Court ought not to have granted an injunction and the writ petition has to be allowed.

¶15Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the issue on maintainability of the writ petition, there is no dispute about the proposition laid down in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and it is settled law. When a party has the remedy of a miscellaneous appeal or a regular

appeal, the High Court, in normal cases, will not interfere. This is a case where the petitioners' company is laying a 400 kV Quad D/c transmission line over 164 kilometers.

¶16A suit is filed by the respondent herein seeking an injunction. First, the Court has to consider whether the facts regarding the project have been brought to the court's notice. Once an injunction is granted and the party appears and files his objections, the Court has to consider them within 30 days. Unfortunately, in this case, since February the Court has been continuously extending the interim order without considering the defendants' case, which would cause a lot of prejudice to the defendants per se and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the infrastructure project is in the larger public interest.

¶17In these circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is rejected, namely, that this Court cannot interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. When this Court is exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when the Trial Court failed to adhere to the procedure contemplated under the

CPC and also failed to consider the objections filed under the Specific Relief Act, where there is a bar of jurisdiction and the interim injunction is continuously extended. This is a fit case where the Court has to look into and interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶18Then coming to the merits of the matter, the suit is filed seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their subordinates, officers, their men, servants, assignees in interest or any persons claiming through them, etc., from any way forcibly drawing a 400 KV electric line over and above the plaint schedule properties by cutting any of the tree growths or agricultural improvements situated in the plaint schedule properties. The respondents to the suit are the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner, Udupi-Kasaragodu Transmission Limited, represented by the Project Officer, and 4th Udupi-Kasaragodu Transmission Limited, represented by its Chief Manager.

¶19It is stated in the plaint that in the third week of December 2025, a few people claiming to be officials of defendant No. 3 came near the plaint schedule properties and

began counting the plans without prior notice or knowledge of the plaintiff. On inquiry, it was revealed that defendant Nos. 3 and 4, being the company, are interested in the work of drawing a 400 kV Quad D/c transmission line from Udupi to Kasargodu, and that the same passes over the plaint schedule property. But the plaintiff objected and stated that, as per the plan and notification, it is not revealed that the transmission line is drawn through the plaint schedule property, nor has any compensation been paid. Later, they verified their own documents and confirmed that, even in their notification, the plaint schedule properties are not included. The defendants are a Deputy Commissioner and an Assistant Commissioner, who were made parties to the suit, clearly shows that the project is an infrastructure project. In respect of the very same corridor, the Division Bench and Single Judge of this Court have held that the parties are entitled only to compensation and the Indian Telegraph Act applies if the transmission line is drawn by a private individual, it cannot be said that the Indian Telegraph Act will apply and the compensation will be paid as per the same. The Co-ordinate Bench and the Division Bench of this Court also held that the project is a infrastructure project and

the Indian Telegraph Act will apply. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the learned counsel for the respondent had appeared in those matters.

¶20The trial Court having perused the plaint and its averments ought to have considered the maintainability of the suit. When an injunction is already granted, when the defendants have filed their written statement and have brought to the notice of the Court about this, the Court ought to have considered it, treating it as most urgent. But unfortunately, the Court has failed to consider either of them.

¶21In the light of these facts, this Court has already passed an order that there shall be a stay of further proceedings. Later, the extension of the injunction order that is granted by the Court is suspended by this Court. Hence, balancing the interest of the parties, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. With regard to the question of jurisdiction, if the petitioners/defendants file an appropriate application, the Trial Court shall consider the

same within 15 days from the date of filing of the application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18069 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. UDUPI KASARAGODU TRANSMISSION LIMITED COMPANIES ACT 1957 PROJECT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, ABCO TRADE CENTER, NH 66, KOTTARA CHOWKI, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 006 REP BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI VENKATESH KUMAR PUJARI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 2. UDUPI-KASARAGODU TRANSMISSION LIMITED, COMPANIES ACT 2013 REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, H.NO. 13/131 (OLD NO. 7/117), ITI COLONY, VIDHYA NAGAR, KASARAGODU, KERALA, PIN - 671 123 REP BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI VENKATESH KUMAR PUJARI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. THAKUR RISHABH RAJ, ADVOCATE) by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:34739( WP(No.(18069(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AND:( ( 1., SMT,LALITHA,SHETTY, W/O.,LATE,SUNDARA,SHETTY,,, AGED,ABOUT,68,YEARS,,, R/AT,NO.1-13,,DEVASYA,HOUSE,,, VITTAL,KASABA,VILLAGE,,, VITTAL,POST,,, BANTWAL,TALUK,-,574,243, , 2., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,, DAKSHINA,KANNADA,DISTRICT,,, MANGALORE,-,575,001., , 3., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,, MANGALORE,SUB-DIVISION,, MANGALORE,,, DAKSHINA,KANNADA,DISTRICT,-,575,001, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SHRIDHAR,PRABHU,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1, ,,,,,,SRI.,SANJAY,YADAV,B.,,AGA,FOR,R2,AND,R3), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,ISSUE,A,WRIT,OF, CERTIORARI, OR, ANY, OTHER, APPROPRIATE, WRIT,, ORDER, OR, DIRECTION,QUASHING,THE,PROCEEDINGS,IN,O.S.NO.14/2026, PENDING,BEFORE,THE,COURT,OF,THE,PRL.,CIVIL,JUDGE,AND, JMFC,,BANTWAL,,AS,BEING,WITHOUT,JURISDICTION,AND,NOT, MAINTAINABLE,AND,ETC., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved by the order granting an injunction and continuing the temporary injunction passed in OS No. 14/2026 dated 14.01.2026 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, whereby, since February 2026, the Trial Court has repeatedly extended the order of temporary injunction without considering the petitioners' application. 2. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court, the office objected to the maintainability of this writ petition. Under the law, the petitioners have a remedy to file an appeal before the Appellate Court against an order granting or refusing an injunction, and having done so, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 24.06.2026, this Court passed the following order: "The petitioners are the Udupi - Kasaragodu Transmission Limited which are defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit. The petitioners are laying a 400 KV Quad D/C transmission line and the suit for injunction is filed seeking a direction to restrain the defendants from laying the transmission lines in the plaintiff's land. Along with the suit, they have filed I.A.No.II seeking dispensation of statutory notice. I.A.No.III is filed seeking injunction, restraining them from forcibly drawing 400 KV electric line over and above the plaint schedule property. The Court has granted injunction. While granting injunction, the Court has observes that; after going through the material available on record, at this stage, the Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction as prayed, so as to mitigate future complications. Further, the very purpose of granting injunction will be defeated by the delay. Considering the extreme urgency made by the plaintiff, the notice on Item No.III to the defendants as contemplated under Order 39 and Order 3 of CPC is dispensed with. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have entered appearance on 24.02.2026. He has filed written statement and I.A seeking