Karnataka High Court
Mr.J.M.Ramanna vs Mr.Shivanna on 2 June, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.117 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MR.J.M.RAMANNA,
SON OF LATE J.MYLARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.395, SHUBHADA,
2ND MAIN, 3RD STAGE, GOKULAM,
MYSORE - 570 002. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHAMANTH.S.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. SHIVANNA,
SON OF LATE CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT: CHAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. MRS.KEMPAMMA,
WIFE OF LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT: UYALLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
LRS. OF RESPONDENT NO.2:
2(A). MR.SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE LIINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2(B). SANNAMMA,
D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
2
2(C). GOWRAMMA,
D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT: NO.10,
UYYALLAPPANA DODDI
MARALAWADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. MR.CHIKKALINGE GOWDA,
SON OF LATE HONNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.116-3,
KEBBEHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
LRS. OF RESPONDENT NO.3:
3(A). MRS.GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE CHIKKALINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
3(B). MR.MANJESHA,
S/O CHIKKALNGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:
NO.116-3, KEBBEHALLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3(C). MRS.MANJULA,
D/O LATE CHIKKALINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
R/AT: NO.3, VIROOPASANDRA,
SATNOOR TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.L.GOPAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2(A) TO 2(C) & R3(A) TO 3(C) ARE SERVED)
3
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Shamanth.S.N, learned counsel for petitioner has appeared in-person.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is listed for admission.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:
The plaintiff - initiated action against the defendants to declare that he is the absolute and lawful owner of the schedule property and also to declare that the sale deed dated:01.02.2012 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favor of the third defendant as sham, evasive, made-up document not binding on him along with permanent 4 injunction restraining the third defendant and defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession. The suit was filed on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura in O.S.No.396/2014.
The third defendant entered appearance through his advocate and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation and non-joinder of parties.
After hearing the matter on the application, the court rejected the application vide order dated:01.02.2021.
Hence, this Writ Petition is filed on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has urged several contentions.
6. Learned counsel has relied on the following decisions:
5
1. KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER - AIR 2011 SC 3590.
2. RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH VS. RAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS - AIR 2019 SC 1430.
3. SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - AIR 2020 SC 2721.
4. DAHIBEN VS. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI
- AIR 2020 SC 3310.
5. MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY VS. SYED JALAL - (2017) 13 SCC 174.
6. METROPOLI OVERSEAS LIMITED. VS. H.S.DEEKSHIT & OTHERS - MANU/KA/4213/2021.
7. MANIPAL UNIVERSITY VS. RAMANJANAPPA.H & OTHERS - MANU/KA/2593/2021.
7. Heard the contentions and perused the Writ papers with care.
8. 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: 6
1. If the plaint doesn't mention a cause of action [(Order VII Rule 11(a)].
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, the third defendant has moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. The true copy of the application filed before the trial court is furnished as Annexure-C in the writ petition.
I have perused the same with care. In the application, there is no mention of the clauses; under which clause plaint shall be rejected. There is no clarity in the prayer and the affidavit.
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 7 purpose of deciding an application under Clause (a) to (d) 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 as barred by limitation. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Order VII Rule 11 of Code also.
I have considered the submission with care. It is perhaps well to observe that the plea with regard to Clause (d) is concerned, the law is well settled that the plaint cannot be rejected or the suit cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of issue on limitation and taking evidence, for question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and on ex-facie reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time.
8
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 determine the correct valuation and require the plaintiff to correct his valuation.
It is needless to say that whether the relief claimed is undervalued, Clause (b) does not allow the defendant to 9 come into picture at the very early stage, it is matter between the plaintiff and the Court.
In so far as clause (c) is concerned, when an insufficiently plaint is presented, the Court under clause (c) is bound to give some time to make up the deficiency before rejection.
The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and on ex-facie reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time.
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 does not illustrate the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the court to reject the plaint at the threshold.
Counsel for petitioner cited a number of cases, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns 10 on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions.
9. 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.
In the last resort, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged 89 years hence a direction may be issued to the trial court to dispose of the suit within a time frame.
Submission is noted.
Taking note of the submission and also considering age of the petitioner, this court deem it appropriate to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE MKM