Single judge granted a petition to withdraw an O. VII R. 11 application to quash the plaint, allowing a fresh application with liberty subject to legal exceptions.
Civil revision petition disposed of; liberty granted to file a fresh application for rejection of the plaint subject to legal exceptions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100009/2018
BETWEEN
SRI.VEERABHADRAPPA S/O BASAVANEPPA GOURI AGE:59 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:SOLARGOPPA, TQ:KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DHARWAD
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.J S SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE, SRI.C.S.HIREMATH, SMT.DEEPA UDIYAR, ADVOCATES)
AND
2
(BY SRI.PRAKASH R BADIGER, ADVOCATE
FOR SMT.PADMPRIYA S JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R1-3, R5-7,
R1-MINOR REPRESENTED BY R2, R4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:14.12.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.60/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT KALAGHATAGI, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for first to third and fifth to seventh respondents are heard. The fourth respondent though served, has remained absent. Perused the impugned order dated 14th December, 2017 in O.S.No.60/2017 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaghatagi (for short, ‘the Civil Court’) . The Civil Court by the impugned order dated 14th December, 2017 has rejected the petitioner-sixth defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’ ).
4
sale deed. Sri.Manjunath Hugar married the second respondent much after the sale. The first respondent was born to Sri.Manjunath Hugar and the second respondent, even according to the plaint, in the year 2010 only. The present suit is filed by the first and second respondents i.e. the wife and the son Sri.Manjunath Hugar only in the year 2017. As such, there is no cause of action for the plaint and in any event the plaint is barred by limitation.
controvert the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is accompanied by an affidavit which is bald and it has none of these assertions. The only ground urged in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that the petitioners have relied upon a RTC which is not for the relevant year. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition
5
with liberty being given to file fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC urging all grounds.
ORDER
The civil revision petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application for rejection of the plaint subject to all just and reasonable exceptions in law.
JUDGE
Sd/-
Sh
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI.VEERABHADRAPPA S/O BASAVANEPPA GOURI
1. VINAYAK S/O MANJUNATH HUGAR
2. SMT.NETRA W/O MANJUNATH HUGAR
3. YALLAPPA S/O JAMBANNA HUGAR
4. SHANKRAPPA S/O JAMBANNA HUGAR
5. GURAPPA S/O JAMBANNA HUGAR
B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
