Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director And Anr vs M Krishnamurthy on 4 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
CRP NO.200016 OF 2024
BETWEEN
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
L AND T CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED,
L AND T HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE,
MUMBAI-400001,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. MUTTURAMAN S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR HOSALLI CROSS,
YADGIRI TALUK,
YADGIRI DISTRICT-585201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.V.S. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE )
AND
M. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O. GURMITKAL,
YADGIRI DISTRICT-585201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE )
- 2-
THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF THE CPC, BY PRAYING TO,
CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.62 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT YADGIRI, AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2024, PASSED ON IA
NO.V IN O.S.NO.62 OF 2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW I.A. NO.V AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
27.06.2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 17.01.2024 passed on I.A. No.5 in O.S. No.62/2020 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Yadagiri, rejecting I.A.No.5 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Sections 9, 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) and Sections 20-A and 41 (ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the SR Act' for short), defendant Nos.5 and 6 are before this Court .
2. Heard Sri R.V.S. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for
- 3- the petitioners and Sri Ganesh S. Kalburgi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and anyone claiming under them, including their agents, subordinates and servants, from causing illegal interference to the plaintiff by laying water pipeline in the suit land except in due process of law.
4. The petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Sections 9, 115 of the CPC and Sections 20-A and 41 (ha) of the SR Act, seeking rejection of plaint as barred by law.
5. The plaintiff filed objections, inter alia, contending that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by law and the suit does not fall under Section 20-A, Section 41(ha) and Entry 3(b) and (e) of the schedule to the SR Act. The plaintiff also stated that the Trial Court on 10.09.2020 allowed I.A. filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and restrained defendants Nos.1 to 6 from laying down the
- 4- pipeline and causing interference in the suit land till the disposal of the suit.
6. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejected I.A.No.5. Aggrieved, defendant Nos.5 and 6 are before this Court.
7. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, taking to the plaint averments at paragraph Nos.4 and 6, would contend that the project is for supply of water from Bhima Water to 35 tanks through pipeline in Yadagiri district and the said project falls within the meaning of "infrastructure project" in terms of Entry 3(b) and 3(e) of the schedule to the SR Act. It is further contended that the project being an infrastructure project of public importance, as per Section 41 (ha) and Section 20-A of the SR Act, the Court cannot grant the relief of injunction sought for by the plaintiff. Emphasizing more, learned senior counsel contends that the present suit seeking relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff and it is clear from the statements
- 5- contained in the plaint itself that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law, including Section 9 of CPC. Learned senior counsel submits that in the suits relief where sought cannot be granted, the Apex Court held that the plaint can be rejected and such suits ought not to have permitted to proceed.
8. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and others1 (Vinod Kumar Jain)
2. Rajendra Bajoria and others Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others2 (Rajendra Bajoria)
3. Sanjay Digambar Patange and others Vs. District Collector, Hingoli and another3 (Sanjay Digambar) by the Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad 1 (2022) 6 SCC 127 2 (2022) 12 SCC 641 3 W.P.No.8085/2021
- 6-
4. Ravi Gupta Alias Ravi Prakash Vs. Govt.
of NCT of Delhi and another4 (Ravi Gupta) in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the defendants are carrying out the work in the suit land without acquisition, without the consent of the plaintiff and without following the due process of law. The suit of the plaintiff is not barred by the law as from the plain reading of the plaint itself indicates that the plaintiff has nowhere pleaded about the infrastructure project and the suit of the plaintiff does not fall under the provisions of the SR Act. Further, learned counsel would submit that merely because the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit, that cannot be a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold, in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application and the same does not warrant any interference.
4 CS (OS) No.500/2019
- 7-
10. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. Gurdev Singh Vs. Harvinder Singh5 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19018/2022 (Gurdev Singh)
2. Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy and another Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and others6 in Civil Appeal No.5822/2022 and other connected appeals (Katta Sujatha Reddy)
11. Before this Court, the petitioners herein filed an affidavit sworn by C. Muthuraman S/o K.M. Chinnappa- petitioner No.2 the authorized signatory of petitioner No.1 on 24.04.2024 stating that petitioner No.1 is executing the works of augmentation of filling up of 35 tanks in Yadagiri districts based under Work Order issued by Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited ('KBJNL') and stated that the project is in public interest and is intended to benefit more than 55 5 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 963 6 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712
- 8- villages and close to 1,00,000 residents. It is stated that the area of 26 guntas in the respondent's land is required to lay the pipeline and submits that petitioner No.1 has paid all landowners through which the pipe line passes crop compensation for disturbance and damage caused to their crops while laying pipelines, based on the type of crop and average yield, as well as the market value for the crop in accordance with the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Further, it is stated that respondent is entitled to crop compensation in respect of output for 26 guntas at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per quintile, which works out to Rs.63,360/-. The affidavit states that the project is being held up and the local residents of the villages are suffering from water scarcity and are deprived of the benefit of the project. It is stated that the petitioners are ready to deposit the crop compensation or make payment directly to the respondent.
12. The respondent, to the affidavit filed by the petitioners, states that under the project, several lands have been acquired under the Notification
- 9- dated 14.06.2021, however, the land of the respondent has not been acquired under the notification to the extent used for laying pipelines.
13. Affidavit filed by the petitioners is in the form of proposal/settlement, parties are always at liberty to work out in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised, in accordance with law.
14. The application filed by the petitioners-defendants Nos.5 and 6 is seeking to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Sections 9 and 151 of CPC and Sections 20-A and 41 (ha) of the SR Act. Order VII Rule 11(d) enumerates as under:
"11. Rejection of plaint.--The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-- x x x
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law"
15. The plain reading of the said provision indicates that the plaint can be rejected on the ground that if the suit is barred by any law, the guiding principle while rejecting the
- 10- plaint is to look into the averments in the plaint only. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that the plaint shall be rejected "where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law." At this stage, it is necessary to refer Section 20-A and 41 (ha) SR Act, which reads as under:
"20A. Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project.--(1) No injunction shall be granted by a court in a suit under this Act involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the schedule, where granting injunction would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of such infrastructure project.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, Section 20B and clause (ha) of Section 41, the expression "infrastructure project" means the category of projects and infrastructure Sub-Sectors specified in the schedule.
(2) The Central Government may, depending upon the requirement for development of infrastructure projects, and if it considers necessary or expedient to do so, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the schedule relating to any category of projects or Infrastructure Sub-Sectors.
- 11- (3) Every notification issued under this Act by the Central Government shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Houses agree that the notification should not be made, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that notification.
x x x
41. Injunction when refused.--An injunction cannot be granted--
xxx (ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project;"
- 12-
16. Section 41(ha), as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel, prohibits the granting of injunction that would impede or delay the progress of "infrastructure projects" as defined in Schedule 3(b) and 3(e) of the SR Act. However, not every infrastructure project falls under the purview of Section 41 (ha). It only applies to the infrastructure projects that fall within the categories specified in the schedule of the Act, which is a matter of evidence. The intent of the legislature in enacting Section 41 (ha) is to ensure that infrastructure projects are not stayed and provisions of Section 41 (ha) should be kept in mind when considering injunction.
17. In the instant case, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, which was allowed by the Trial Court on 10.01.2020 restraining defendant Nos.1 to 6 from laying down the pipe line in the suit land till the disposal of the suit. Nothing has come forward from the materials on record as to the efforts made
- 13- by the defendants to seek for vacating of the order of injunction.
18. The decision in Rajendra Bajoria's case stated supra, the Apex Court held that if the relief, as sought in the plaint, cannot be granted, then the only option available to the Court is to reject the plaint. The view of the Apex Court was that the plaint has to be rejected when, by reading plaint alone and assuming the averments made in the plaint to be correct and if the Court is of the view that the reliefs claimed can be granted in law since the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim such reliefs, the Court should reject the plaint as disclosing no cause of action.
19. In the instant case, looking into the plaint averments as rightly held by the Trial Court does not indicate any grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), whether the project falls within the meaning of infrastructure in terms of the Schedule to SR Act, whether the relief of injunction can be granted or cannot be granted is
- 14- a question to be determined after trial. Neither the plaint nor the averments indicate that the suit is barred by law.
20. The decisions placed in the cases of Sanjay Digambar, Ravi Gupta and Vinod Kumar Jain, this Court has no quarrel regarding the proposition laid down in the said decisions, however, the same are distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts. In Vinod Kumar Jain's case, the Apex Court held that while granting an injunction, the Court should keep in mind the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed.
21. In the present case, the Trial Court has already granted relief of temporary injunction and the petitioners herein have not sought for vacating the interim order, indicating that the project undertaken by the defendants is an infrastructure project, which contention can very well be raised in an application seeking to vacate the interim order and not for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). Similar is the view in Sanjay Digambar and Ravi
- 15- Gupta's case, where the consideration before the Court was against the granting of injunction. Perusal of the plaint averments do not indicate any grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) at the threshold. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated and dismissed the application - I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioners and the same does not warrant any interference and for the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. The impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.5 stands confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM CT:PK