Karnataka High Court
Mr.Waseem Ahmed vs C.R. Lokesh on 15 December, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53240
CRP No. 644 of 2025
C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 644 OF 2025 (SC)
C/W
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 643 OF 2025 (IO)
IN CRP No. 644/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. RAHINA TABASSUM
W/O WASEEM AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1, 2ND CROSS, RAMAKKA BLOCK,
CHINNAPPA GARDEN, BENSON TOWN POST,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 046.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. C.R.LOKESH
signed by S/O LATE C N REVANNA,
MALATESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
KC
R/AT NO. 40, HOSPITAL ROAD,
Location: SHIVAJINAGAR,
HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M D RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE
IN CP NO.18358/2025)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, 1964 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.08.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1
(FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) CPC) IN SC. NO.15143
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53240
CRP No. 644 of 2025
C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025
HC-KAR
OF 2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVII ASCJ & ACMM,
BANGALORE SCH-21 (MAYO HALL UNIT) AND ETC.,
IN CRP NO. 643/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR. WASEEM AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL SAMAD,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO 13,2ND CROSS, RAMAKKA BLOCK,
CHINNAPPA GARDEN,
BENSON TOWN POST
BANGALORE,
KARNATAKA - 560 046.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. C.R. LOKESH
S/O LATE C.N.REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.40, HOSPITAL ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, 1964 PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.08.2025
PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 (FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d)
CPC) IN SC. NO.15144 OF 2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
XVII ASCJ & ACMM, BANGALORE SCH-21 (MAYO HALL
UNIT) AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53240
CRP No. 644 of 2025
C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.D. Raghunath, learned counsel for the common respondent, in both the revision petitions.
2. These two revision petitions are filed by the defendants in S.C.No.15143/2024 and S.C.No. 15144/2024, respectively, pending on the file of the XVII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, challenging the dismissal of the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'). Both suits were filed for ejectment and mesne profits.
3. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petitions, are as under:
3(i) Defendants having entered appearance in the aforesaid suits, filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:53240 CRP No. 644 of 2025 C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025 HC-KAR CPC contending that as per Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, there is no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suits. Therefore, the plaints were sought to be returned to the proper Court for presentation. The same was objected to by the plaintiff.
3(ii) Learned trial Judge after considering the objections and rival contentions of the parties, by impugned orders in both the suits, rejected the applications, with a cost of Rs.1,000/- each.
3(iii) Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants, in both suits, are before this Court.
4. Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petitions, would contend that under Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is not available to entertain the suit inasmuch as apart from claiming Rs.1,98,000/-, there is a claim for -5- NC: 2025:KHC:53240 CRP No. 644 of 2025 C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025 HC-KAR mesne profits in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court gets ousted.
4(i) He would also emphasize that for consideration of the pecuniary jurisdiction, it is the valuation paragraph in the plaint that needs to be considered, which would per se makes it clear that the suits before the Small Causes Court are not maintainable for want of jurisdiction in view of Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act and sought for admitting the revision petitions for further consideration.
4(ii) Sri Mohammed Tahir, lastly, submitted that the reliance placed by the learned trial Judge in the impugned orders on the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid vs. A.S. Onkarappa1 is not applicable to the case on hand.
4(iii) Further, in support of his case, Sri Mohammed Tahir placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex 1 ILR 2011 KAR 229 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:53240 CRP No. 644 of 2025 C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025 HC-KAR Court in the case of Gopalakrishna Pillai and others vs. Meenakshi Ayal and others2.
5. Per contra, Sri M.D. Raghunath, learned counsel for the respondent in both the revision petitions, supports the impugned orders.
6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material law on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material law on record, it is crystal clear that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts at Bangalore, as per the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, is now to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas in the other Small Causes Courts in the State, it is Rs.1,00,000/-. The said amendment is made by issuing necessary notification.
7. The valuation paragraphs in both suits are considered by this Court.
2 AIR 1967 SC 155 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:53240 CRP No. 644 of 2025 C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. It is those averments in the plaints which are pressed into service by the counsel for revision petitioners seeking to hold that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction.
9. As could be seen from those averments, the claim is in a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- and therefore, the suits are maintainable and the plaints cannot be either rejected or returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
10. Insofar as mesne profit is concerned, it is settled principle of law and requires no emphasis that it is a matter that has to be adjudicated by the Court and to be decided on merits during the trial.
11. Though a person may call it as mesne profits, but, when there is a termination of tenancy by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, if a tenant overstays in the premises, what is to be recoverable is the damages and not mesne profits. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:53240 CRP No. 644 of 2025 C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. The terms 'mesne profits' and 'damages' are two different terms and one cannot be equated with the other. Therefore, the claim in the valuation paragraph is only indicative and that is not the one which would be decisive while deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gopalakrishna Pillai, referred to supra, in paragraph No.7, held as under:-
"7. Order 20 Rule 12 enables the Court to pass a decree for both past and future mesne profits but there are important distinctions in the procedure for the enforcement of the two claims. With regard to past mesne profits, a plaintiff has an existing cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit. In view of Order 7 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 7(1) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff must plead this cause of action, specifically claim a decree for the past mesne profits, value the claim approximately and pay court-fees thereon. With regard to future mesne profits, the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit, and it is not possible for him to plead this cause of action or to -9- NC: 2025:KHC:53240 CRP No. 644 of 2025 C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025 HC-KAR value it or to pay court-fees thereon at the time of the institution of the suit. Moreover, he can obtain relief in respect of this future cause of action only in a suit to which the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 apply. But in a suit to which the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 apply, the Court has a discretionary power to pass a decree directing an enquiry into the future mesne profits, and the Court may grant this general relief though, it is not specifically asked for in the plaint, see Basavayya v. Guruvayya, [ILR 1952 Mad 173 at p.177 (FB)]. In Fakharuddin Mahomed Ahsan v. Official Trustee of Bengal [(1882) ILR 8 Cal 178 (PC) at p.189] Sir R.P. Collier observed:
'The plaint has been already read in the first case, and their Lordships are of opinion that it is at all events open to the construction that the plaintiff intended to claim wasilat up to the time of delivery of possession, although, for the purpose of valuation only, so much was valued as was then due; but be that as it may, they are of opinion that, under Section 196 of Act VIII of 1859, it was in the power of the Court if it thought fit, to make a decree which should give the plaintiff wasilat up to the date of obtaining possessions.' Section 196 of Act VIII of 1859 empowered the Court in a suit for land or other property paying rent to pass a decree for mesne profits from the date of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53240 CRP No. 644 of 2025 C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025 HC-KAR the suit until the date of delivery of possession to the decree-holder. The observations of the Privy Council suggest that in a suit to which Section 196 of Act VIII of 1859 applied, the Court had jurisdiction to pass a decree for mesne profits though there was no specific claim in the plaint for future mesne profits. The Court has the like power to pass a decree directing an enquiry into future mesne profits in a suit to which the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply."
This Court has perused the above principles meticulously. Order XX of CPC contemplates a situation as to enquiry insofar as the mesne profits.
14. As referred to supra, the terms 'mesne profits' and 'damages' are altogether different terms. Irrespective of what the plaintiffs' claim, what is to be decided in a suit for ejection is only damages for overstaying in the premises and not mesne profits. Mesne profits would be claimed usually against a person occupying somebody else's property without right and when the main suit is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53240 CRP No. 644 of 2025 C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025 HC-KAR disposed of, with regard to the mesne profits, there will be a separate enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC.
15. In the case on hand, admittedly, no contra right or superior right is claimed by the revision petitioners, as admittedly they are the tenants in the suit property and their tenancy came to be terminated by issuing the necessary notice under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.
16. Therefore, per se there cannot be any enquiry either for the past mesne profits or for the future mesne profits. What is to be decided by the learned trial Judge in the trial is the damages for having occupied the suit property post termination of his tenancy.
17. Therefore, even though there cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in Gopalakrishna Pillai's case, referred to supra, the facts of the case would not be made applicable to the case on hand.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53240 CRP No. 644 of 2025 C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025 HC-KAR
18. Whether at all tenancy is duly terminated or not and whether at all having regard to the rate of rent, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court is ousted, are all matters that are to be decided by the learned trial Judge during the trial, after recording the evidence of the parties to the lis.
19. It is settled principles of law that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, averments made in the plaint alone are to be considered and therefore, this Court does not find merit in any one of the grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioners for rejecting the plaints at the threshold.
20. Accordingly following:-
ORDER
i) Both the Civil Revision petitions are dismissed.
ii) No order as to costs.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53240
CRP No. 644 of 2025
C/W CRP No. 643 of 2025
HC-KAR
In view of the dismissal of the main matters, pending applications do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45