Karnataka High Court
Shri J Loganathan vs Mr Satish K on 3 June, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHRI J.LOGANATHAN,
S/O SHRI T.H.J. GOUNDER,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.611, 50 FEET,
DOUBLE ROAD, RMV 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HARISH JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.AJAY.J.NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.SATISH K.,
S/O SHRI K.R.KRISHNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.18, 5TH CROSS,
KATHARIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
2. SHRI K.R.ANJANEYA GOWDA,
S/O LATE RAME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
NO.78, KESARAGERE VILLAGE,
MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
2
3. SHRI K.A.RAGHUNATH,
S/O K.R.ANJANEYA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.78, KESARAGERE VILLAGE,
MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
4. SHRI DR.K.A.RAME GOWDA,
S/O SHRI K.R.ANJANEYA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT. HOUSE NO.50,
2ND FLOOR, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
5. SHRI K.A.SURESH,
S/O K.R.ANJANEYA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT. FLAT NO.C, 1ST FLOOR,
MULTI CORNER APARTMENT,
1/6-9, 5TH CROSS,
BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT,
RMV II-STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
6. SHRI K.R.KRISHNE GOWDA,
S/O LATE RAME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
NO.78, KESARAGERE VILLAGE,
MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.
7. SHRI K.SANTOSH,
S/O K.R.KRISHNE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.78, KESARAGERE VILLAGE,
MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.
3
8. M/S. LIKHIT HOTELS
AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.,
NO.27, 6TH CROSS,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009,
REPRESENED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, DR.K.A.RAME GOWDA.
9. SHRI S.NARAYANA,
S/O LATE KARIBASAPPA SETUR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/NO.66, 4TH 'N' BLOCK,
59TH 'B' CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
10. SHRI S.VENKATESH
S/O LATE KARIBASAPPA SETUR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/NO.66, 4TH 'N' BLOCK,
59TH 'B' CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
11. SHIRI T.N.BRAHMARESH,
S/O LATE NARASIMHULU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
12. M/S. CORPORATION BANK,
MALLESHWARAM BRANCH,
NO.64, VASTHRA BHAVAN,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 055,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
13. SURABHI CHITS LTD.,
NO.5, 1ST FLOOR,
4
GAJENDRA TOWERS,
11TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011,
REPRESENTED BY
SRINIVASA RAO,
RECOVERY MANAGER.
14. SRI. RAMACHANDRA GOWDA.S.V,
S/O SRI VENKATASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.25, BALAJI NILAYA,
3RD FLOOR, 3RD MAIN,
5TH CROSS, N.S.PALYA,
BTM II-STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,
1908.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Harish Jayakumar, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Ajay.J Nandalike, for petitioner has appeared in person. 5
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The facts are stated as under:
It is stated that plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.NO.1539/2014 seeking relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to put him in possession of the share and also for declaration that the alleged agreement for sale dated 09.01.2014 is not binding on him.
The defendant No.13 was not an original party to the suit and he sought to be impleaded into the suit by the plaintiff by way of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Defendant No 13 was impleaded. It is said that the plaintiff also filed a separate application for amendment of plaint and adding item No's 8 to 12 to the list of suit schedule properties the plaint was amended.
It is averred that defendant No 13 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the Civil 6 Procedure Code to reject the plaint on the ground that the relief claimed is undervalued. The plaintiff filed objections to the application. The trial court rejected the application vide order dated 29.10.2021. Hence, this writ petition is filed on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has urged several contentions.
5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of petitioner and perused the writ papers with care.
6. The short point which requires consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application?
Suffice it to note that the plaint is bound to be rejected by the Court in the following circumstances:
1. If the plaint doesn't mention a cause of action [(Order VII Rule 11(a)].7
2. The relief claimed in the plaint is undervalued [(Order VII Rule 11(b)].
3. Relief has been stated in the plaint clearly but the paper on which the plaint is written is not properly stamped [(Order VII Rule 11(c)].
4. If the suit is barred by any Statute [(Order VII Rule 11(d)].
In the present case, thirteenth defendant has moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of CPC to reject the plaint. The true copy of the application filed before the trial court is furnished as Annexure-F in the writ petition.
I have perused the same with care. In the application and in the affidavit it is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected for undervaluation of the suit and for non-payment of sufficient court fee.
As is well known that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application for rejection of the plaint are averments made in the plaint. For the purpose of deciding an application under Clause (a) to (d) 8 of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement or in the application would be wholly irrelevant.
A good deal of argument was canvassed on rejection of plaint at the threshold for undervaluation and non- payment of sufficient court fee. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Order VII Rule 11 (b) of Code and also.
I have considered the submission made on behalf of defendant No 13.
Suffice it to note that if a plaint is undervalued it cannot be rejected straightway without giving time to value it properly. A Court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been undervalued and determined 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 9 picture at the very early stage, it is matter between the plaintiff and the court.
In my considered view, while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is not 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. If a plaint is undervalued it cannot be rejected straightway without giving time to value it properly. A court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been undervalued and determined the correct valuation and require the plaintiff to correct his valuation.
To conclude, I can say only this much that it is not a case of creation of illusion of a cause of action so as to say that the plaint to be nipped in the bud. The present case 10 does not illustrate the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the court to reject the plaint at the threshold.
On facts and in all the circumstances of the case, the Trial Judge is justified rejecting the application. I find no reason to interfere with judge's order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN