Partly allowed

Khaja Hussain and Ors. v. Mabusen and Anr.

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2020WP/202274/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that the writ petition quashing the rejection of plaint was not maintainable as the remedy under Section 115 CPC was available. The petition was converted into a civil revision petition without deciding substantive grounds.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition converted into civil revision petition; to be assigned a new number. Writ petition disposed of for statistical purposes.

Khaja Hussain and Ors. Vs Mabusen and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.202274/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KHAJA HUSSAIN S/O MAHEBOOB HUSSAIN SAB KAGI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE DURUGAMMA TEMPLE, GANGAVATHI-583227

¶9

SHABBEER S/O MAHEBOOB HUSSAIN SAB KAGI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶10

OCC: AGRICULTURE, NEAR MASJID AT FORT AREA, SINDHANUR.

¶11

KAMALIBABA S/O LATE JEELANI SAB KAGI AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶12

MOULALI S/O LATE JEELANI SAB KAGI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶13

ISMAIL S/O LATE JEELANI SAB KAGI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶14

SMT. SHAMEED BEE W/O S/O LATE JEELANI SAB KAGI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶15

PETITIONERS NOs. 3 TO 6 ARE R/AT CHALUVADI STREET NEW DURUGAMMA TEMPLE GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOOPPAL

¶16

¶17

SMT. KHASEEM BEE W/O LATE MASTAN SAB AGED 50 YEARS R/AT ROUDAKUNDA, TQ: SINDHANUR

¶18

... PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

MABUSEN S/O LATE NANNESAB KAGI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O ROUDAKUNDA VILLAGE TQ: SINDHANUR.

¶22

KAJA HUSSAIN S/O LATE NANNESAB KAGI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE AND AGRICULTURE R/AT ROUDAKUNDA VILLAGE TQ: SINDHANUR.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari in nature quashing the impugned order in O.S.No.335/2017 dated 19.07.2018 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge at Sindhanur vide Annexure-E and consequently this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to return the plaint as per Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, etc.

¶25

This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The top noted petition is filed questioning the

¶28

order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.V filed under

¶29

¶30

Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC. The petitioners have filed the said application seeking rejection of the plaint. The said application is rejected by the Trial Court. Against which, civil revision petition under Section 115 of CPC would lie to this court.

¶31

In that view of the matter, the petitioners are required to avail remedy under Section 115 of CPC. The counsel for petitioners has filed a memo dated 03.01.2020 seeking conversion.

¶32

Memo is taken on record and the top noted

¶33

writ petition is converted into civil revision petition. Office is hereby directed to assign a new number.

¶34

For statistical purpose, this writ petition

¶35

stands disposed of.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

sdu

Khaja Hussain and Ors. v. Mabusen and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Hussain and Ors. v. Mabusen and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Veeresh and Ors. Vs K. Sharanappa S/O K. Siddaramappa

Smt. Bhagirathi and Anr. Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Shailaja and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

The Charalingeshwara Vidya Vardhak Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Sri Baburao Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Mahanthgouda Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.