Dismissed

Sri.H.Yeshwanth Shenoy v. Smt.Devamani M

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022CRP/291/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting a plaint under CPC Order VII Rule 11. The Court found no error in allowing the plaint as it disclosed a cause of action, while limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. It directed the trial court to dispose of the main suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with a direction to the trial court to decide O.S.No.44/2015 as expeditiously as possible.

Sri.H.Yeshwanth Shenoy Vs Smt.Devamani M — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.291 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.H.YESHWANTH SHENOY S/O.H.V.SHENOY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO 6, ALANAHALLI VILLAGE T NARASIPURA MAIN ROAD MYSORE 570 026 REP BY GPA HOLDER SRI SANJAY H CHUGH S/O HARICHAND B AGED 52 YEARS R/A 3 AND 4, WEST PARK ROAD KUMAR PARK EAST EXTENSION BANGALORE 560001.

¶9

... PETITIONER (BY SMT.B.V.VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT.DEVAMANI M W/O. SRI.RUDRASWAMY D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT HADAJANA VILLGE

¶12

VARUNA HOBLI MYSORE 571 311.

¶13

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA

¶14

¶15

AGED 56 YEARS

¶16

SMT. JAYAMANI D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED 32 YEARS

¶17

SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE MADAPPA AGED 60 YEARS

¶18

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O SRI SHVANNA AGED 49 YEARS

¶19

SMT. NETHRA D/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶20

SRI. MAHADEVA S/O SHIVANNA AGED 26 YEARS

¶21

SRI. PUTTAPPA S/O LATE MADAPPA AGED 55 YEARS

¶22

SMT. GANGAMANI W/O SRI PUTTAPPA AGED 46 YERS

¶23

SRI. SHIVAPRASAD S/O SRI PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶24

KUM. RADHIKA D/O SRI PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶25

MR. KARTHIK S/O SRI PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶26

¶27

SRI. CHANDRU S/O LATE MADAPPA AGED 49 YEARS

¶28

SMT. PREMA W/O SRI CHANDRU AGED 40 YEARS

¶29

SRI. SURESHA S/O LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶30

RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 15 ARE R/AT CHIKKALI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE 570010.

¶31

SRI. SURESH S/O SHIVARAM RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT D.NO.313, J P NAGAR MYSORE 570 013.

¶32

... RESPONDENTS

¶33

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2021 PASSED ON IA.NO.4 IN OS.NO.44/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MYSURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.4/15 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶34

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2021 passed on I.A.No.4/2015 in O.S.No.44/2015 by the II Civil Judge,

¶37

¶38

Mysuru under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, the instant petition is filed by the defendant No.15 therein.

¶39

The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the suit schedule property from the respondents herein by a registered sale deed dated 05.01.2007. Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.44/2015 contending that she has not executed the sale deed and respondent Nos.2 to 15 herein have done the same behind her back by colluding with the petitioner herein. It is contended by the petitioner that the sale deed has been executed in his favour in respect of the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property pursuant to a decision in O.S.No.476/2006 and that the suit is barred by limitation and that there is no cause of action.

¶40

The trial Court however upon perusing the plaint has come to the conclusion that the plaint averments disclose the cause of action and that whether the suit is barred by limitation under the given facts and circumstances of the case is a mixed question of law and fact and further that the petitioner herein is claiming to be the owner of only Item No.1 of the suit schedule property

¶41

¶42

and he has no interest in Item No.2 and the plaint cannot be rejected in part and for that reason, the trial Court dismissed the interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶43

Learned Advocate for the petitioner during the course of arguments though asserts that the contentions raised by the petitioner herein are true and correct, he fairly submits that the question of limitation in the instant case, is a mixed question of law and fact and would require evidence to be let-in and prays that a direction may be issued to the trial Court for early disposal of the original suit as the suit is filed in the year 2015.

¶44

Admittedly, the bare reading of the plaint in the instant case reveals that there is a cause of action and in the given the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the petitioner herein is interested in only item No.1 of the suit schedule property and the suit pertains to the other property also, in which the petitioner is not interested and for the said reason, the plaint could not have been rejected

¶45

¶46

by the trial Court and I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶47

However, it is noticed that the suit is of the year 2015 and it is submitted that it is posted for plaintiff's evidence. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. Hence, the following:-

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petition is hereby dismissed with a

¶50

direction to the trial Court to decide O.S.No.44/2015 on the file of the II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) at Mysore, as expeditiously as possible.

¶51

In view of dismissal of the main petition, the interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

¶52

SD/-

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

VMB

Sri.H.Yeshwanth Shenoy v. Smt.Devamani M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.H.Yeshwanth Shenoy v. Smt.Devamani M

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

Syed Akthar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shipra Tayal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shoib Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S. I. Reddy Vs Smt. Elizebath

Smt v a Barathi Vs Sri Erachari

Smt Chandana C S Vs Sri Chandan M S