Criminal Revision Petition dismissed. The High Court of Karnataka rejected the petition challenging the trial Court's refusal to dismiss a plaint on limitation grounds, holding the issues are facts and law not warranting interference.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.
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.
CRP NO.128 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.128 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF ATTURU VILLAGE, KEMPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 064.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka
CRP NO.128 OF 2022
CRP NO.128 OF 2022
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 19 ARE RESIDENTS OF ATTURU VILLAGE, KEMPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA HOBLI & TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 064.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH B., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R20 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2022)
CRP NO.128 OF 2022
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09TH MARCH, 2022 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1100 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA No.4 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(D) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This Revision Petition is filed by defendants 8 and 20 in Original Suit No.1100 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), challenging the order dated 09th March, 2022, whereby, the application IA.4 came to be rejected.
CRP NO.128 OF 2022
Annexure-D, seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing objections as per Annexure-E. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by impugned order dated 09th March, 2022, rejected the application IA.4 filed by defendants 8 and 20. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendants 8 and 20 have presented this revision petition.
CRP NO.128 OF 2022
CRP NO.128 OF 2022
limitation is the question of fact and law, had rightly dismissed the application filed by defendants 8 and 20. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper and same does not call for any interference in this revision petition. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ARK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the application for rejection of plaint based on limitation.
Whether the plaintiff's contention regarding prior suit proceedings warrants interference in the revision petition.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
MUNIRAJU V
VASUDEVARAYA
MUNIYAMMA
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
