Karnataka High Court
Sri Lokanadha Rao vs Smt. Bhagyamma on 28 August, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1 CRP 266/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRP No.266/2012 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SRI LOKANADHA RAO
AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI VENAKTESHWARA RAO,
R/AT NO.10, H.L. NO.44/2,
NEAR BBMP HELP CENTRE,
HORAMAVU POST,
BANGALORE - 560 043.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri P S MANJUNATH, Adv.)
AND:
1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
D/O LAKSHMAIAH.
2. SMT KOMALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
D/O LAKSHMAIAH.
2 CRP 266/2012
3. SMT RAJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O LAKSHMAIAH.
4. SMT LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O LAKSHMAIAH.
5. SRI RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
D/O LAKSHMAIAH.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT GARUDACHARPALYA,
WHITE FIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.MANJUNATH, Adv. FOR R1-5)
-ABSENT-
THIS CRP IS FILED U/SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE ORDERS DATED : 08.06.2012 PASSED IN
O.S.25360/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 28TH
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BANGALORE, REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/O-7,
RULE-11 OF CPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3 CRP 266/2012
ORDER
Heard SriP.S.Manjunath, learned counsel for the appellants. Respondents 1 to 5 are served through their Advocate Sri.Manjunath. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 1 to 5.
2. The plaintiffs 1 to 5 (respondents 1 to 5) have filed suit for partition against defendants 1 to
85. The reliefs sought for in the suit are as follows:
a. to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/24th share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds by granting the preliminary decree of partition;
b. to declare that the sale deed executed by the defendant no.2 in favour of the defendant No.10, with respect to the Item No.2; of the suit schedule property;4 CRP 266/2012
bearing Sy.No.83, measuring 10.10 guntas is not binding on the plaintiffs;
c. to declare further sale deeds executed by the defendant No.10, in favour of defendant No.11 and the subsequent sale deeds executed by the defendant No.11 in favour of defendant No.12 and 13 with respect to the Item No.2 of the suit schedule property; bearing Sy.No.83, measuring 10.10 guntas is not binding on the plaintiffs;
d. to declare that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.4 I favour of the defendant No.9 with respect to the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property;
bearing Sy.No.70; measuring 7 acre 38guntas, is not binding on the plaintiffs".
3. Sri.P.S.Manjunath, learned counsel for appellants would submit that plaintiffs are challenging registered sale deed dated 24.04.1998; registered gift deed dated 01.10.1992; registered sale 5 CRP 266/2012 deed dated 06.12.1993 and other revenue documents. In terms of reliefs' 'b' to 'd', the plaintiffs have sought for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.10 is not binding on plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have sought for declaration that sale deeds executed by defendant No.10, in favour of defendant No.11 and subsequent sale deeds executed by defendant No.11 in favour of defendant Nos.12 and 13 and sale deed executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.9 are not binding on plaintiffs.
4. The plaintiffs have not stated the dates of registered sale deeds, which are sought to be declared as not binding on plaintiffs. The learned Trial Judge without noticing these basic formalities has rejected the application under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6 CRP 266/2012
5. In a decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 (in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi -vs- Nirmala Devi) the Supreme Court has held:
"52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be cured? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial Courts while dealing with the civil trails:
A. Pleadings are the foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial Judge to carefully scrutinise, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.
B. The Court should resort to discovery and
production of documents and
interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the Court in arriving at the truth of the mater and doing substantial justice.7 CRP 266/2012
C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and / or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.
D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits.
E. The Courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting exparte ad interim injunction or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing the parties concerned appropriate orders should be passed.
F. Litigants who obtained exparte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the Court.8 CRP 266/2012
G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order t do real and substantial justice.
H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well-settled principles of law and Justice.
I. If in a given case, exparte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.
J. At the time of filing of the plaint the trial court should prepare a complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of the judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said timetable as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed.
6. When the plaintiffs' have sought for relief of declaration that execution of sale deeds are not 9 CRP 266/2012 binding upon them without specifying the dates of the sale deeds. When such declaration is sought, it is the bounden duty of the Trial Court to examine the question of limitation with reference to the date of document and the date of institution of the suit. In the case on hand, the plaint does not spell out the dates of the registered sale deeds in relation to which aforestated reliefs' are sought.
7. Under Order VII Rule 6 of CPC, when suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such is claimed : [Provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any ground not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint.] 10 CRP 266/2012
8. In the case on hand, there is concealment of material particulars in the plaint. The reliefs sought for one omnibus in nature. In the circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the Court to examine the plaint in terms of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision above cited (2001) 8 SCC 249.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Judge for re-
consideration in the light of observations made herein and in accordance with law.
Office is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE dh*