Karnataka High Court
Orange County Resort And Hotels Ltd vs Smt H Hulagemma W/O. Hulagappa on 18 June, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8082
CRP No. 100067 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100067 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. ORANGE COUNTY RESORT AND HOTELS LTD.,
R/BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
MR. BIDDAPPA M.C. S/O. M.N. CHINNAPPA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL MANAGER,
R/O: KAMALAPURA, TAL: HOSAPETE,
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201.
2. ORANGE COUNTY RESORT AND HOTELS LTD.,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. GEORGE T. RAMAPURAM,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT APT. 123,
RANKA VIEW, RATHNA AVENUE,
#51/22 RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU-560025.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by V N SMT. H. HULAGEMMA W/O HULAGAPPA,
BADIGER
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: High
Court of R/O: 5TH WARD, AMBEDKAR, KAMALAPURA,
Karnataka
TAL: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201.
... RESPONDENT
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 115
OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
20.03.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE ON IA NO.VIII IN OS NO.1/2021 BY
ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITION TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE PLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF FOR WANT OF CAUSE OF ACTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8082
CRP No. 100067 of 2024
ORDER
1. This petition is by the defendants aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2024 passed in O.S.No.1/2021 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, by which the trial Court has rejected the application in I.A.No.8 filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.
2. The above suit in O.S.No.1/2021 is filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein, for relief of declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff in plaint 'A' schedule property and for possession of plaint 'B' schedule property.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties having purchased the same in terms of deed of sale dated 07.08.2013 and that the defendants are having immovable properties towards eastern side of the plaint 'A' schedule property. That the defendants on the basis of a created agreement, are claiming right of way and have now illegally laid road on the portion of schedule 'A' property -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8082 CRP No. 100067 of 2024 causing damage to the trees belonging to the plaintiffs. The cause of action urged in the suit is of 07.08.2013 and 15.05.2015 when the defendants allegedly laid road and installed electric poles and created agreement of right of way.
4. The defendant on appearance, filed the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint contending that the plaintiff herself has admitted the agreement dated 15.05.2015 that was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to right of way and the suit for relief of declaration having been filed in the year 2020 is barred by limitation and that there was no cause of action.
5. The trial Court by the impugned order, taking note of principles of law applicable with respect to consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, came to the conclusion that the averments made in the plaint indeed indicate existence of right in favour of the plaintiff and infraction of the same and that -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8082 CRP No. 100067 of 2024 the claim of the plaintiff requires to be adjudicated only after conducting trial. The trial Court has also found that the perusal of the plaint discloses cause of action for suit. As regards the limitation is concerned, the trial Court has found that the said point requires to be considered during evidence as the same involves mixed question of fact and law and thus declined to entertain the application.
6. Perusal of plaint indicate that the plaintiff has alleged fabrication of agreement dated 15.05.2015. Plaintiff has sought declaration of her title and recovery of possession of property. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order.
7. Upon a query by this Court, learned counsel submits that the evidence of the plaintiff is completed and the matter is now set down for cross-examination of PW1.
8. In that view of matter, no grounds are made out warranting interference.
9. Petition is rejected as it lacks merit. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8082 CRP No. 100067 of 2024
10. Pending IAs., if any, do not survive for consideration.
SD/-
JUDGE KGK CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2