Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. N. Babu Reddy vs Sri. Kadirappa on 21 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15406 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 12908 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 13119 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 13120 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 13748 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 13753 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 13878 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 13893 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 14041 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 15406/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B. N. BABU REDDY,
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
RESIDING AT NO. 40,
Digitally signed by
NAGAVENI DODDA BANASAWADI,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KADIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SON OF GULLAPPA,
2. SRI. K. JOHN SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
SON OF KADARAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 41/62,
11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DT-28.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.4 IN
O.S.NO.25712/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO-20) VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 12908/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. BABU REDDY,
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED),
RESIDING AT NO.40,
DODDA BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SARAVANA M,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MUNISWAMY,
RESIDING AT NO.62/2,
11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 052.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A.
NO.4 IN OS NO.25710/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI
ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU
CCH-20 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 13119/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. BABU REDDY,
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED),
RESIDING AT NO.40,
DODDA BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PADMA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
SON OF GULLAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.62,
11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DT-28.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.4 IN
O.S. NO.25684-2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH NO.20) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 13120/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. BABU REDDY,
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED),
RESIDING AT NO.40,
DODDA BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SON OF SHYAM,
RESIDING AT SHED NO.10 IN PROPERTY, NO.62/2,
11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DT-28.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.4 IN
O.S. NO.25888/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.20)
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
IN WP NO. 13748/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. BABU REDDY,
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED),
RESIDING AT NO.40,
DODDA BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. M. VIJAYA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WIFE OF S. BHARATH,
RESIDING AT NO.62/2,
11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A.
NO.4 IN O.S. NO.25683/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL,
BENGALURU (CCH NO.20) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 13753/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. BABU REDDY,
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED),
RESIDING AT NO.40,
DODDA BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NANDINI M.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WIFE OF V. BABU,
RESIDING AT SHED NO.9
IN PROPERTY NO.62/2,
11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DT-28.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.4 IN
O.S. NO.25726/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.20)
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 13878/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. BABU REDDY,
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED),
RESIDING AT NO.40, DODDA BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LURDHMARY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WIFE OF MR. DHANASHEKAR
RESIDING AT NO 62,
11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DD 28.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 4 IN
OS NO. 25685/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH NO. 20 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 13893/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. BABU REDDY,
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
RESIDING AT NO. 40,
DODDA BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MALA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
WIFE OF LATE RAJU,
RESIDING AT NO. 62/2,
11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD-28.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.4
IN O.S. NO.25711/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU
(CCH NO-20) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 14041/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. BABU REDDY,
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED),
RESIDING AT NO.40,
DODDA BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. TENCY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SON OF MUNISWAMY,
RESIDING AT NO.62,
11TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.4
IN OS NO.25682/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH
NO.20 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The conglomeration of these cases are by the same petitioner and plaintiffs are different.
2. Heard Sri. T.N.Vishwanatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Suresh S. Lokre, learned senior counsel for Sri. Shravan S. Lokre, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.25712/2021 seeking permanent injunction qua the suit schedule property.
After appearance, the defendants file an application seeking leave of the Court to file Written Statement as the time to file
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
Written Statement had stood expired by 16.09.2022. On permitting of filing of the Written Statement on 16.09.2022, the same was taken on record. The respondent-plaintiff files an application in I.A.No.4 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to eschew/delete allegations made against the respondent's advocate on record from particular paragraphs of the Written Statement. The petitioner then files objections to the said applications. The concerned Court after hearing the parties, by its order dated 28.01.2025 allows the application filed by the advocate for plaintiff and eschews/deletes the alleged allegations made as sought for in the application. It is on the deletion or eschewing as the Court has done, drives the defendant to this Court in all these petitions. The cause of action to approach the doors of this Court is common.
Therefore, the petitions are tagged and considered by this common order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there is nothing derogatory that is averred at the paragraphs that are sought to be eschewed. They are all a matter of record. It would not become derogatory by an
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
averment in the Written Statement that the advocate himself goes to the police station and seeks to register a crime. The learned counsel would submit that this by any means cannot be construed to be derogatory. He would therefore seek quashment of the order passed by the concerned Court.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Suresh S Lokre appearing for the respondent-plaintiffs would vehemently contend that it is the statement made against the advocate.
Therefore, the Court has acceded to the application filed by the plaintiffs and eschewed all the remarks filed in the Written Statement. The learned counsel would contend that even before the Written Statement was taken on record, the order is passed by the concerned Court. He would by taking this Court through the alleged statements made in the Written Statement contend that they cannot be eschewed as they are matters of fact.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.
8. The issue that drives the defendant before this Court is the order passed by the concerned Court eschewing certain paragraphs of the Written Statement. It therefore becomes necessary to notice those paragraphs of the Written Statement. The Written Statement is preferred on 19.09.2021.
The concerned Court has held as follows:
"9. On perusal of the entire records, it reveals that, the plaintiff has filed this suit for seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anybody on his behalf interfering or trespassing the plaintiff or family members or demolishing any portion of the house property in their occupation without due process of law. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is required to plead and establish that, he is in lawful possession and legal right to enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. At the same time, the plaintiff is also required to establish that, he is having lawful possession or legal right over the suit schedule property, which is interfered by the defendants. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant is required to plead and prove the facts in the plaint, which are material facts. He has to establish his case by pleading the material facts and only material facts which are required to prove his case. In this regard, it is relevant to note here, what are the material facts needs to be prove under civil procedure code.
10. A pleading is defined under Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC as a plaint or written statement. The object of any pleading is to ensure that the relief sought by a plaintiff are clearly spelt out, and are supported by appropriate
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
factual averments. Each pleading must be tailored to provide the other side with the intimation of what your pleadings of case is, so that they can respond to such claims and relief sought specifically. Moreover, a pleading is the opportunity for the Court to fully understand what is the core issue between the parties which need to be adjudicated. This was succinctly summarized in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that:
"The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial."
In Bacchaj Nihar, in a case and a number of subsequent decisions, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down the golden rule of pleadings - that in the absence of a specific prayer and pleadings in support of the prayed for relief, a civil court will be remiss to grant such relief to the plaintiff, since it will lead to a miscarriage of justice for the defendant. The rationale behind such an interpretation on the specificity of pleadings is the importance of giving the defendant a fair and equal chance of refuting the plaintiff's case. If the plaintiff fails to disclose a crucial fact, or claim a certain relief without having any supporting pleadings in its plaint, the defendant would be deprived of that opportunity.
However, the court is also rooted in the reality of the prevailing social circumstances in which many parties are compelled to file civil suits seeking relief. It is this empathy which led to courts adopting a more liberal approach in assessing procedural compliance of a pleading, and give way to the rule of liberal construction. The rule of liberal construction essentially states that pleadings should be construed liberally, as long as the court can ensure that no prejudice is caused to the other side as a result of such interpretation.
This view was further elaborated in Kedar Lal v. Hari Lal, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, a civil court should be slow to throw out a claim on a mere technicality of pleading when it contains the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
relevant substantive averments, and where allowing such a pleading will not cause any prejudice to the other side. It also clarified that it was always open to a court to give a plaintiff such general or other relief as it deemed fit, which would be to a limited extent, provided that it did not cause any prejudice to the other side beyond what can be compensated for in costs.
Essentials of pleadings A pleading should (a) state material facts and not the evidence on which the party seeks to rely on, (b) state such facts in a concise form, and (c) provide all particulars where they are required.
These conditions are contained in Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, and the requirement to state all material facts has time and again been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Udhav Singh v Madhav Rao Scindia, it was clarified that all the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are material facts. Courts have also made it clear on previous occasions that a pleading does not need to contain legal arguments or contentions but only contain the relevant and material factual averments which give rise to a legal right in favour of the plaintiff, or create a legal duty on the defendant which is alleged to have been breached.
The duty to disclose all material facts during pleadings is crucial though, since a court will not allow a party to lead evidence on a particular fact if it has failed to include it in its pleading. Furthermore, the failure to disclose material facts can even attract the grave consequence of the suit being dismissed in its entirety, making the observations of the Supreme Court in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh pivotal:
"...it is however absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish existence of a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleadings by the party."
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
It is also a general rule that the pleadings should contain only facts which are required to be proved (facta probanda) and not the facts by means of which they are to be proved (facta probantia). In other words, pleadings should contain a statement of material facts on which the party relies upon, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. [Borrodaile v Hunter] Order VI Rule 6 of the CPC further requires a party to provide any condition precedent which is needed to be fulfilled before a particular relief can be sought before, and ultimately granted by the civil court. Rule 9 also requires that the description and effect of the documents which the party seeks to rely upon needs to be stated in the pleading (which later aids the party as well as the court during the marking of such documents into evidence). The requirement for the pleadings to be in a concise form are further developed by the conditions laid down in Order VI Rule 2, which states that each allegation must be contained in a separate paragraph, ensuring that the pleading is easily readable and understandable.
The plaintiff, who is the dominus litis of a civil suit, has the burden of complying with the requirements of Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC, which contains the essentials of a plaint. Apart from the requirements of ensuring the correct and accurate details of the parties and the court before which the suit is instituted, the plaintiff is also required to ensure that it states:
-The facts which constitute the cause of action in the suit and when such cause of action arose;
The facts which establish that the civil court has jurisdiction over the dispute;
-Statement containing the value of the subject- matter of the suit, so as to ascertain pecuniary jurisdiction and court fee;
-Statement that the suit is filed within limitation;
-Reliefs which have been claimed by the plaintiff.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
The requirements contained in Order VII Rule 1 are extremely salient, since Rules 10 and 11 also provide for powers of the civil court to return the plaint altogether if it doesn't have jurisdiction, or to reject it for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements. While requirements such as filing the suit, against the necessary and proper party (Order I CPC) and to execute a vakalatnama in favour of the pleader whom the plaintiff wishes to engage (Order III) are fairly well-known, and relatively straightforward to comply with, other requirements often crop up on the basis of the nature of the suit, or on the party against whom it is filed.
Order VIII of CPC contains the essentials of a written statement, which include inter alia:
- Any new facts and averments which establish that the suit is not maintainable, or that the transaction which the plaintiff seeks to prove is void/voidable as a matter of law, and all other averments and grounds of defence as it deems appropriate.
- All averments, including but not limited to: non- disclosure of the cause of action, inappropriate relief sought by the plaintiff, the proposed action being barred by time or law, the suit otherwise being not maintainable, incorrect jurisdiction, and necessary parties not impleaded, plaint not properly signed or verified.
In support of such new facts and averments, the defendant is also required to produce all supporting documents as required before the civil court as per Order VIII Rule 1. Each averment made by the plaintiff in its plaint must be specifically and categorically denied by the defendant in its written statement, as provided under Order VIII Rule 3. An evasive and non-specific denial is not permissible as per Rule 4 of Order VIII, and can even allow the civil court to admit the plaintiff's averments at face value, since such averments have not been denied appropriately by the defendant.
11. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has pleaded that, he is in possession and
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410 WP No. 15406 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025 WP No. 13119 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with his family in his own right, sine the time of his father in law. The defendant who has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property trying to interfere and forcibly dispossess the occupants including the plaintiff by using his influence and force with rowdy elements. Hence, sought for relief of permanent injunction. The defendant denied the said contents and put of his defence stating that, the property is situated in 11th Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru, measuring 50x40 feet is now belonging to the defendant and with regard to this property Dobbospet Free Reading Room, Millers Road, Vasanthnagara, has filed suit bearing OS No.10391/1987 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the father of the defendant. The father of the defendant also filed suit for mandatory injunction in OS No.10488/1981 against one Shivalingam. The defendant had also filed suit in OS No.10701/1982 against the said Dobbospet Free Reading Room, Shivalingam and Bengaluru City Corporation seeking the relief of declaration as there was come discrepancy with regard to the measurements. The said three suits were clubbed together and by the common judgment was rendered by dismissing the OS Nos.10701/1982 and 10488/1981 and suit filed in OS No.10391/1981 was decreed. The said judgment was questioned before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.351/1998, 352/1998 and 353/1998. The said RFA's were dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
12. Apart from the said pleadings, the defendant has stated that, admitted the existence of this defendant's property is admitted in the plaint finding in Os No.10391/1981, which was presented by the present advocate. This pleadings with regard to presenting the plaint by the counsel, who is advocate in record in the present case is not at all required for just and complete adjudication of the present suit. The pleadings are always concerned to the parties and not to the advocate. The pleadings are only drafted by the advocates or counsels, as per the instructions of the clients. Therefore the pleadings are always binding on the parties and not the advocate. Hence the said pleadings is not required for just and complete adjudication of the present suit.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
13. It is further stated by the defendant that, the plaint has been intelligently drafted and presented by making false and frivolous claim in respect of this defendant's property. In the other words, the plaint has to be nipped at the budding stage itself by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on appreciation of recitals of the plaint. As already stated above, the pleadings drafted by the counsel or advocate as per the instructions of the clients. The advocate or counsels draft the pleadings on the facts and information given by their clients, within the four comes of law. Therefore, the pleadings to which the clients or parties are the signatories to the particular pleadings and the parties will become the author of the said pleadings. Therefore the draft prepared made by the counsels or advocate or legal practitioners cannot be held as false or frivolous claims, intelligently drafted by the counsels. As per the law, the pleadings of the parties binds them. Hence, no such allegations can be made against the counsels. If at all the parties aggrieved by the such draftings, they can approach the competent authority by following due process of law.
14. It is pleaded by the defendant in their written statement that, the advocate on record for plaintiff came to the High Grounds Police Station on 30.06.2021 and pressurized the Inspector of Police to raise FIR against the defendant in Crime No.79/2021, on the basis of the alleged complaint said to have been filed by Pinto, Saroja, Vijaya, Mala and Dhanashekhar. The said pleadings stated by the defendant is clear and direct allegations against the counsel on record, who is representing the plaintiff. The defendant, if at all aggrieved by any act of the advocate, can approach State Bar Counsel and Bar Counsel of India by filing the complaint and by following the due process of law. The said statements made in the written statement are not at all required for just, effective and complete adjudication of the present suit. The said allegations are made against the advocate on record, who is representing the plaintiff. If at all the defendant is aggrieved by the any conduct of the counsels can take the recourse under law, instead of mentioning the same in the present suit. Therefore it is rightly stated by the counsel on record that, such statement made in the written statement needs to be deleted or eschewed while
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
conducting the present case. Otherwise, it will be an embrassing situation for the advocate on record to represent the plaintiff and to continue with the matter and conduct the proceedings of the present case. The principle ethics and requirements of the pleadings of the parties in the plaint and the written statement deems with only material facts, which are required to draft and establish occurred to be completed in the plaint and the written statement to seek the relief or to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Therefore the said pleadings as observed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in para No.10 (v), (x) and (xiv) required to be deleted by the defendant. If the defendant fails to delete the said derogatory statement, the same will be eschewed. Hence application filed by the advocate for the plaintiff seeking deletion or eschew the said derogatory statement is allowed, in the interest of equity. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER I.A.No.4 filed by the Advocate for plaintiff U/Sec. 151 of CPC seeking to eschew and delete the allegations made against the plaintiff's advocate on record from Para No.10(v), (x) and (xiv), is allowed.
The defendant is directed to delete the said derogatory statement made in the Para No.10(v), (x) and (xiv), of the written statement on or before next date of hearing. If the defendant fails to delete the same, the same shall be eschewed.
No order as to costs."
9. The order of the concerned Court is based upon the application filed by the petitioner. The observations that are now eschewed are as follows:
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
"10(v) It is respectfully submitted that Dobbospet Free Reading Room, Millers Road, Vasanthanagara filed suit bearing O.S.No.10391/1981 for permanent injunction against the father of the Defendant with respect to the property detailed as hereunder before the City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru:-
"The building site together with the structure standing thereon comprising the Dobbospet Free Reading Room run by the Plaintiff, the land belonging to Bengaluru City Corporation situated in the 4th Main Road, Vasanthanagar (formerly known as Dobbospet) Bengaluru 560 052 measuring East to West 50 Feet and North to South 40 Feet and 222 2/9 square yards in area bounded on the: North by: Vacant land (now XV main road) South by: Drain and buildings, East by: Open land and West by: Open land and building now belonging to the Defendant".
It is respectfully submitted that the father of the Defendant also filed civil suit bearing O.S.No.10488/1981 against A.S. Shivalingam for mandatory injunction. Apart from the said suit, father of the Defendant had also filed civil suit bearing O.S.No.10701/1982 against Dobbospet Free Reading Room, Bengaluru City Corporation and A.S. Shivalingam in respect of the property for declaration as there was some discrepancy with regard to the measurement. It is respectfully submitted that all the said three suits were clubbed. During the pendency of the said three suits, father of the Defendant i.e. N. Narayana Reddy died in the year 1988 leaving behind Sri B.N. Babu Reddy, Sri B.N. Yema Reddy and B.N. Sadashiva Reddy as his nearest legal representatives. Thereafter, the said legal heirs of deceased N. Narayana Reddy were brought on record in the said three suits. Thereafter, common judgment was rendered by dismissing the suits bearing O.S.10701/1982 and 10488/1981 and decreeing the suit bearing O.S. No. 10391/1981 filed by Dobbospet Free Reading Room for permanent injunction in respect of the Schedule mentioned in the Plaint (Plaint in OS 10391/1981). It is further submitted that the said Judgment and Decree
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
was questioned by this Defendant and brothers before the Hon'ble High Court in R.F.A. No. 351/1998, RFA 352/1998 & RFA 353/1998 and the said R.F.A. was dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Court below. It is respectfully submitted that subsequent to disposal of R.F.A., this Defendant and his brothers continued in possession of the property demarcated by the City Survey Authorities. The fact of execution of Sale in favour of deceased N. Narayana Reddy and he was in possession of the property demarcated by the City Survey Authorities is not disputed by the contesting parties and in fact, the existence of this Defendant's property is admitted in the Plaint presented by the present advocate who represented Dobbospet Free Reading Room in O.S. 10391/1981. It is respectfully submitted that the finding recorded in the earlier suits only in respect of discrepancy with regard to the measurement of the property acquired by this Defendant's father N. Narayana Reddy and not in respect of title. In fact, the Defendant in O.S.10488/1981 has categorically admitted the existence of the property of this Defendant and disputed only with regard to the measurement of this Defendant's property. In view of the said fact, the finding recorded in the earlier suit will not take away the right of this Defendant with respect to the property bearing old Number 59, 60 new number 61, present BBMP Number 4, Property ID Number 78-113-4, 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru. It is further submitted that the decree in O.S. 10391/1981 is not in respect of the property bearing old Number 59, 60 new number 61, present BBMP Number 4, Property ID Number 78-113-4, 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru which belonged to this Defendant.
10(x) It is respectfully submitted that all the above said facts clearly establishes that this Defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the entire property bearing present BBMP No. 4, Property ID Number 78-113-4, 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru. The Plaintiff has no claim over the said property, made an attempt to interfere with this defendant's lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property bearing present BBMP Number 4, Property ID Number 78-113-4, 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru, by alleging that she is
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
in possession of portion of the property bearing old number 4, new number 62, situated in 4th Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru, (which was leased by the Bengaluru City Corporation on 04.10.1960 to the Dobbospet Free Reading Room). It is respectfully submitted that the Plaint has been intelligently drafted and presented by making false and frivolous claim in respect of this Defendant's property. In other words, the plaint has to be nipped at the budding stage itself by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on appreciation of recitals of the Plaint. It is respectfully submitted that when the Plaintiff made an attempt to trespass on the property of this Defendant, he has no other option except to prevent the illegal act of the Plaintiff and lodged Police Complaint on several occasions before the Vasanthanagar Police Station from 22.04.2021 till 19.06.2021. The Police Authorities instead of protecting the interest of this Defendant, at the instance of the advocate on record, false Criminal case has been initiated against this Defendant and this Defendant is prosecuting the said Criminal case and also lodge necessary complaints before Higher Authorities as well as before Human Rights Commission to initiate appropriate proceedings for having initiated false criminal cases against this Defendant and the same is under process. It is pertinent to mention here that the advocate on record came to the High Grounds Police Station on 30.06.2021 and pressurized the Inspector of Police to raise FIR against the Defendant in Crime No.79/2021 on the basis of the alleged complaint said to have been filed by Pinto, Saroja, Vijaya, Mala and Dhanashekhar. It is respectfully submitted that for the said complaint dated 30.06.2021, all the complainants are not the signatories and at the same time a false complaint was lodged against this Defendant by alleging that the huts/sheds were demolished by the Defendant and taken valuables such as Mangala sutra, phone, TV, Fridge, Washing Machine and other valuables from the said complainant's custody. The said handwritten complaint was drafted by the advocate on record and same was given to the jurisdictional police. The alleged complaint filed on 30.06.2021 clearly establishes that false complaint has been lodged, though the complainant's are not interested to lodge complaint before the Police Authorities. In fact, the Plaintiff and other persons who have filed similar
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
case have categorically admitted before the Police Authorities that they are strangers and they are not in possession of the property which belonged to this Defendant situated in 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru. It is respectfully submitted that this Plaintiff and other persons who have filed similar cases against this Defendant are poppets in the hands of the said local politicians and other interested parties. In other words, some local politicians approached this Defendant to part the property bearing present BBMP Number 4, Property ID Number 78-113-4, 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru in their favour and the said demand of the local politicians was refused by this Defendant and thereafter, the said local politicians and other interested parties have set-up this plaintiff and other persons who have filed suit against this Defendant on the basis of cooked up documents such as Voters ID, Aadhar Card, Driving License, alleged Un-authorized water and alleged Electric connection. It is respectfully submitted that the said documents placed by the Plaintiff in order to establish their alleged possession are all cooked up documents and the same does not pertains to the property of this Defendant. It is respectfully submitted that the above suit has been filed by the Plaintiff on the basis of created and bogus documents in respect of non-existing property numbers and address and the alleged documents produced by the Plaintiff does not pertain to the property of this Defendant's bearing BBMP No.4, Property ID No.78-113- 4, 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru - 560
052. It is further submitted that the present suit is filed in respect of un-identified property by mentioning wrong property particulars which are not at all in existence by giving false schedule and mentioning bogus property numbers. It is respectfully submitted that there is no BBMP property in 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru. In fact, this Defendant applied before the concerned authority to know whether their exists property of BBMP bearing old No.4 or new number 62, 11th 'A' Main, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru and in that regard, BBMP authorities have issued an endorsement to the effect that there is no such BBMP property or any other property bearing number 60, 61, 62, 62/2 belonging to the BBMP existed in 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru. It is further submitted that
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
the BBMP has not assigned any number bearing 60, 61, 62 & 62/2 to the properties situated in 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanhanagar, Bengaluru and there is no such property bearing numbers 60, 61, 62 & 62/2 existed in 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru. Such being the case, the alleged documents placed by the Plaintiff is disputed by this Defendant and the same is put to strict proof. It is respectfully submitted that the Plaintiff and other persons who have filed similar suit against this Defendant are dancing to the tune of the said local politicians who have kept eagle eye on the property of this Defendant and to knock off the same at throw away price. The said true facts has been concealed and made an attempt to trespass on the property of this Defendant, though the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property at any point of time. It is further submitted that the said local politicians have set up some strangers who have no claim over the property of this Defendant and who are not in possession of the alleged suit property, to file false and frivolous suits against this Defendant with an intention to pressurize to part the property bearing present BBMP Number 4, Property ID Number 78-113-4, 11th 'A' Main Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru in their favour and to make wrongful gain. The over-all appreciation of the said fact clearly establishes that the local politicians and other parties are beyond this litigation to knock off the property of this Defendant by making false allegations.
10(xiv) The Plaintiff is not in possession of the property at any point of time and the alleged claim of the Plaintiff title is denied by this Defendant. Such being the case, the Plaintiff has to pay court fee under Section 26(a) (i) & (ii) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and not under Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The Court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient and on that count itself, the plaint is liable to be rejected."
10. The afore-noted paragraphs which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was derogatory, in the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
considered view of the court would not become derogatory as they are the matters of fact based upon which the Written Statement is preferred. If it were to be defamatory to the extent of bringing down the name of the learned counsel in the eyes of the public, it would have been altogether a different circumstance. The allegation of the word being derogatory has sprung from thin air without there being any foundation. Even otherwise, the averments made in those paragraphs in the considered view of the Court are not and cannot be derogatory as they are allegedly facts. In the event, the respondent could not prove the same before the concerned Court, it would always be open to the person or the advocate against whom derogatory statements are made to work out his remedies as available in law.
11. In that light, without getting into the evidence or without considering the Written Statement as it is, the order of deleting or eschewing those paragraphs in the Written Statement, is on the face of it erroneous.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27410
WP No. 15406 of 2025
C/W WP No. 12908 of 2025
WP No. 13119 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER [i] Petitions are allowed.
[ii] The orders impugned in all these cases stand quashed; as a result of which, none of the statements made in the Written Statement stand deleted. The application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.4 stands rejected, reserving liberty as observed in the course of the order to take recourse to the proceedings as available in law.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 55