Sunil S vs The Head Mistress on 29 August, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sunil S vs The Head Mistress on 29 August, 2012

Bench: B.Manohar

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

                    BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

                R.F.A.No.195/2012

BETWEEN:

SUNIL S
S/O.N.SEETHARAM
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/A. NO.122,
SREE NANDESHWARA NILAYA
OUTHOUSE, 4TH CROSS,
9TH MAIN, GOKUL,
MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE-560 054
                                    ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.T.K.RAJAGOPALA AND
SMT.T.R.NETHRAVATHI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.     THE HEAD MISTRESS
       BAPU BALA BHARATHI
       ENGLISH SCHOOL,
       YESHWANTHAPURA,
       BANGALORE-560 022

2.     THE SECRETARY
       KARNATAKA SECONDARY
       EDUCATION, EXAMINATION BOARD,
       MALLESHWARAM,
       BANGALORE-560 003
                              2



3.   THE PRINCIPAL
     BAPU COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY
     COLLEGE, YESHWANTHAPURA,
     BANGALORE-560 022

4.   THE SECRETARY
     BOARD OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS,
     BANGALORE - 560 003

5.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
     PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
     BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
     BANGALORE - 560 009
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
12.10.2011 PASSED IN O.S. NO.2763/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE XVI-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

     THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                    JUDGMENT

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2763/2011. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2011 passed by the XVI- Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit filed by him, has filed this appeal. 3

2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for declaration, declaring that plaintiff's mother name is Padmavathi.N. and to direct the defendants No.2, 3 and 5 to insert the plaintiff's mother name as N.Padmavathi instead of Padma.N. in the school records.

3. The grievance of the plaintiff is that while admitting to the school the name of the plaintiff's mother has been wrongly mentioned as Padma.N. instead of Padmavathi.N. After passing SSLC, PUC and Diploma he came to know about the mistake in the markscards. Immediately he issued a legal notice to the defendants seeking for correction of name of mother as N.Padmavathi. However, there was no response from them. In view of that he filed a suit with the above relief. Though the defendants are served with notice, there was no representation, they placed exparte. 4

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?

2. What Order or Decree?

5. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exhibits P1 to P7. Since the defendants are now represented, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

6. The specific case of the plaintiff is that his mother's name has been wrongly shown as Padma.N. instead of Padmavathi.N. and he has issued a legal notice to defendants. Since there was no response from the defendants, he filed the suit. Exhibit P1 is his SSLC markscard, Exhibit P2 is Diploma markscard and Exhibits P3 and P4 are the SSLC markscards of his sisters to show that the name of his mother is Padmavathi.N. He also produced his election identity 5 card and ration card and got marked these two documents as Exhibits P5 and P6. Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that no suit has been filed against the Government without issuing statutory notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that he has issued notice to defendants as required under Section 80 of the CPC, though he has asserted that he has issued legal notice, the Trial Court taking into consideration that the mandatory requirement has not been followed accordingly dismissed the suit.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed this appeal. In this appeal also no document has been produced to show that he has complied with Section 80 of the CPC. No additional documents are also produced. Since the plaintiff has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under Section 80 of the CPC, the plaintiff cannot maintain in this suit. 6

8. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court accordingly I dismiss the appeal.

Sd/-

JUDGE DR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court