Karnataka High Court
Sri Srinivasa vs Sri N Vijayakumar on 15 July, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:27348
CRP No. 697 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 697 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRINIVASA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
1. SMT. S. SUMALATHA,
W/O LATE SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. SRI. LOKESH,
S/O LATE SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
3. SRI. PAVAN KUMAR S,
S/O LATE SRINIVASA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
by
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA 4. KUM. HARSHITHA,
Location: HIGH D/O LATE SRINIVASA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO. 137, MUDAOBALLAPPA CIRCLE,
SULIBELE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN
PIN CODE - 562 110.
5. SRI. G. PURUSHOTHAMA,
S/O LATE D.V. MUDLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:27348
CRP No. 697 of 2023
R/AT NO. 137,
MUDAOBALLAPPA CIRCLE,
SULIBELE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. N. VIJAYAKUMAR,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT TALUK OFFICE ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 562 110.
2. SRI. N. SHASHIKUMAR,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT DVM COLONY,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 562 110.
3. SRI. MUNIRAJU,
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT GIRIYAMMA CIRCLE,
BUDIGERE ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 562 110.
4. SRI. MANJUNATHA,
S/O D.K. RAMALINGAM,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:27348
CRP No. 697 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
SAROVARA BEEDHI,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 562 110.
5. SRI. RAVI,
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT GIRIYAMMA CIRCLE,
BUDIGERE ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 562 110.
6. SRI. SRINIVAS,
S/O LAKSHMAN MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT AMBEDKAR COLONY,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 562 110.
7. SRI. HUSSAINI,
S/O YUSUF,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT DVM COLONY,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 562 110.
RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 7 ARE
AUTO DRIVERS BY PROFESSION
AND THEY ARE THE MEMBERS OF
JAI BHUVANESHWARI AUTO CHALAKARA SANGA,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:27348
CRP No. 697 of 2023
GIRIYAMA CIRCLE, BUDIGERE ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 562 110.
8. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF OFFICER,
PIN CODE - 562 110.
9. THE SECRETARY,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
OFFICE AT PARLIAMENT BUILDING,
NEW DELHI
PIN CODE - 110 001.
10. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA,
OFFICE AT NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
11. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
HON'BLE REVENUE SECRETARY,
OFFICE AT VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEKDAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
12. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
OFFICE AT VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:27348
CRP No. 697 of 2023
13. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE AT CAUVERY BHAVAN BUILDING,
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(R-1 AND R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R-3 TO R-13 IS DISPENSED WITH,
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2024)
***
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
22.09.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.26 IN OS.NO.566/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.26 FILED UNDER
ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.
THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Call for entire records from the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil judge and JMFC at Devanahalli in O.S.No.566/2014.
b) Set-aside the impugned orders passed dated 22/09/2022 by the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli rejected on I.A.No.26 filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC in O.S.No.566/2014 and be pleased to reject the plaint by reversing the findings of the trial court by allowing I.A.No.26.-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:27348 CRP No. 697 of 2023
c) To grant such other order/s, relief/s as deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the above case and award cost of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. A suit in O.S.No.566/2014 had been filed seeking for a judgment and decree against the defendants to declare that the 'B' Schedule property is a Government property and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from putting up any construction on the said 'B' Schedule property.
3. The petitioners No.1 to 4 are the legal representatives of defendant No.1 and petitioner No.5 is the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action which is made out.
4. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 22.09.2022. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:27348 CRP No. 697 of 2023 Challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is completely frivolous, vexatious and filed by the third parties as regards the private property of the petitioners' 'A' Schedule property, described in 'A' Schedule to the plaint and as such, there is no cause of action in respect of the said property.
6. The Trial Court, after having taken into consideration the submission made by the petitioners before it has come to a conclusion that there are no grounds which have been made out in terms of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaint discloses the cause of action and as such, dismissed the application.
7. Sri. Vijaya Shekara Gowda V., learned counsel for the petitioners again reiterates the submission that the plaint had been filed by the third parties who -8- NC: 2024:KHC:27348 CRP No. 697 of 2023 have no manner of right, title or interest over the 'A' Schedule property.
8. The petitioners have been prevented from using their property in view of the pendency of the litigation. The cause of action, if any, is against the 'B' Schedule property and not against the 'A' Schedule Property and as such, the Trial Court ought to have taken these factors into consideration and rejected the plaint.
9. Having heard Sri.Vijaya Shekara Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the plaint, the application filed by the petitioner No.5 (defendant No.2) as also the impugned order, it is clearly seen that what relief had been sought for is as regards the 'B' Schedule property to declare the same as a Government land. There is no relief which has been sought for in respect of 'A' Schedule Property. Petitioners' only claim right over 'A' Schedule property and not claim any right over the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:27348 CRP No. 697 of 2023 'B' Schedule property. Petitioners cannot contend that there is no cause of action in respect of the 'B' Schedule property.
10. The Trial Court has rightly observed that all the contentions taken up by the petitioners as also the report submitted by the Commissioner would be the subject matter of trial.
11. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. However, considering the suit is one of the year 2014 and is still pending after ten years, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible.
12. Pending I.As. do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35/CT: BHK