Karnataka High Court
L Venkataramana Raju vs Siddarevaiah @ Siddaraju on 26 May, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 169 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
S/O LATE R.L RAJU
NO.76, RANGA RAO ROAD
SHANKARAPURAM
BENGALURU-560004
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.JYOTHI.S.K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SIDDAREVAIAH @ SIDDARAJU
SIDDAREVANNA
SIDDARAJU LAKSHMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LAKSHMANAPPA
KURUBARAKARENAHALLI
BIDADI-HOBLI
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.893, BEHIND GURUSRI
HOSPITAL, 10TH CROSS
CHANDRA LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560040
... RESPONDENT
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
2
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.Jyothi, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.G.S.Prasanna Kumar, has appeared in person.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is listed for admission.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:
Plaintiff initiated action against the defendant on the file of Principal Civil Judge in O.S.No.07/2021 seeking injunction and declaration, declaring that the sale deed dated:01.12.2020 vide document No.RMN-1-05984-2020- 21 as null and void along with interim application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.3
The defendant entered appearance through his advocate and filed written statement and objections to interim application. The defendant also filed an application IN I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) R/w Section 151 of CPC for rejection of plaint.
It is stated that the plaintiff carried out amendment and deleted the prayer for declaration and confined to the relief of injunction.
The Trial Court after hearing both the sides, dismissed the application for rejection of plaint vide order dated:31.01.2022. Hence this Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, on various grounds as set out in the memorandum of Revision Petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has urged several contentions.
6. Heard the contentions and perused the Petition papers with care.
4
7. The short point which requires consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application?
In the present case, the defendant has moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) R/w Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint for want of cause of action, under valuation, non-payment of advoleram Court fee and barred by law.
The defendant has stated that the entire plaint is bald, vague and vexatious without pleading any material fact constituting cause of action for sustaining the suit.
It is true that a plaint which does not disclose any cause of action should be rejected. But it would be relevant to note that there is a clear difference between the non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint and the absence of cause of action for the suit. The ground for rejection of plaint is failure to disclose a cause of action and not that there is no cause of action for the suit. It is not competent for the Court to go into the correctness or 5 otherwise of the allegations constituting the cause of action, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations constituting the cause of action is beyond the scope of Order VII rule 11 of CPC. What is required to be disclosed by the plaintiff is a clear right to sue.
Bearing these principles, let me see what facts I have here.
The true copy of the plaint, written statement and the application filed under Order VII rule 11 (a) to (d) R/w Section 151 of CPC and the statement of objections are filed along with the revision petition.
As could be seen from the plaint, it is clear that the suit is filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or anybody claiming under him from interfering in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties.
Suffice it to note that initially the suit was filed for injunction and also for declaration. However, the plaintiff 6 sought amendment and deleted the prayer of declaration. Hence, the present suit is only for a bare injunction.
In paragraph 7 of the plaint, the cause of action is stated. It reads as under:
"That the plaintiff submits that the cause of action arose on 01.12.2020 when defendant along with his associate put the plaintiff under threat and got executed the sale deed in favor of the defendant towards the suit schedule property."
In paragraph 9 of the plaint, the plaintiff as stated as under:
9) That the plaintiff submits that the possession of the suit schedule property:-
a) That the plaintiff and his family are still holding the peaceful possession of the property.
b) That the plaintiff is cultivating the baby corn on the said suit schedule property.
In my considered view, while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not 7 required to take into consideration neither the defense set up by the defendant in his written statement nor the averments made in the application for rejection of the plaint. The question whether the plaint discloses any cause of action is to be decided by looking at the averments contained in the plaint itself. What has to be seen is whether or not a meaningful reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action. In the present case, a bare reading of the plaint would certainly disclose the cause of action.
The defendant has also raised contention with regard to under valuation, non-payment of advoleram Court fee. It is perhaps well to observe that if a pliant is undervalued, it cannot be rejected straightaway without giving time to value it properly. A Court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been undervalued and determine the correct valuation and require the plaintiff to correct his valuation. Whether the relief claimed is undervalued, clause (b) does not allow the defendant to come into picture at the very early stage, it is a matter between the 8 plaintiff and the court. Hence, the contention with regard to undervaluation must necessarily fail.
The plea with regard to clause (d), the law is well settled that the plaint cannot be rejected or the suit cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of issue on limitation and taking evidence, for question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and on ex-facie reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time.
8. On facts and in all the circumstances of the case, the Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the application. I find no reason to interfere with judge's order. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the stage of admission.
Sd/-
JUDGE SKS