Allowed

Smt. Roopa C.S. v. Sri. Nanjappa

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2023RFA/1262/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh reconsideration, granting liberty to the appellant to file objections.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting plaint set aside; matter remitted to Trial Court for reconsideration of application within three months; liberty reserved for appellant.

Smt. Roopa C.S. Vs Sri. Nanjappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43032 RFA No. 1262 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1262 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. ROOPA C.S. D/O SONNAPPA W/O NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI

¶8

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 562 110.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. NANJAPPA S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST JALA HOBLI

¶13

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶14

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI.S.RANGARAJU S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶16

CHITTARANJAN @ CHIKKARANJAN S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶17

SRI SHASHIDAR S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶18

SRI UDAYAKUMAR S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43032 RFA No. 1262 of 2016

¶20

RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KUNTE BEEDI CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 110.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.V. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-3 D/W VIDE ORDER DATED 07.08.2019; R-2 AND R-4 ARE SERVED ; NOTICE TO R-5 IS H/S VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2019)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2014 PASSED ON I.A NO.IV IN O.S NO.439/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE IA NO.IV FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., PRAYING TO REJECT THE PLAINT.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.02.2014 passed in O.S.No.439/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the application – I.A.No.IV filed by respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) r/w Section 151 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court, which rejected the plaint and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43032 RFA No. 1262 of 2016

¶29

3. A perusal of the material on record including the

¶30

impugned order will indicate that in the aforesaid suit for declaration, injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property filed by the appellant – plaintiff against respondents – defendants, in addition to filing the written statement, the defendants also filed an application – I.A.No.IV under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The said application was not opposed by learned counsel for the appellant, who did not file objections nor did he remain present when the matter was taken up, as a result of which, the Trial Court proceeded to hear respondent No.1 and his counsel and allowed the application and rejected the plaint, aggrieved by which, the appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, it was not possible for the counsel for the plaintiff to appear before the Trial Court to file objections to I.A.No.IV and contest the same in accordance with law. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is provided in favour of the appellant – plaintiff by setting aside the

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43032 RFA No. 1262 of 2016

¶33

impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, the appellant would file objections to I.A.No.IV and same can be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶34

Though the said submission is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.1, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that undisputedly, the appellant had not filed objections to I.A.No.IV nor was the counsel present when the matter was taken up and I.A.No.IV was disposed of in the absence of the appellant and his counsel before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellant to contest I.A.No.IV on merits and by adopting a justice oriented approach, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.IV afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both parties.

¶35

In the result, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed .

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43032 RFA No. 1262 of 2016

¶39

(ii) The impugned order dated 11.02.2014 passed in O.S.No.439/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, is hereby set aside.

¶40

(iii) Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree is also hereby set aside.

¶41

(iv) Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for

¶42

reconsideration of I.A.No.IV afresh in accordance with law.

¶43

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to file objections to I.A.No.IV and contest the same in accordance with law.

¶44

(vi) Parties undertake to appear before the Trial Court without awaiting further notice on 19.12.2023.

¶45

(vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶46

(viii) The Trial Court is directed to consider and

¶47

dispose of I.A.No.IV in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Smt. Roopa C.S. v. Sri. Nanjappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Roopa C.S. v. Sri. Nanjappa

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

Sri Ramesh Vs Smt Gowramma

Mrs. Divya Ravichandraa Vs M/S. Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd.

Chikkadurgaiah Vs P R Govardhan

Smt. Alumelamma Vs Sri B Somashekar Reddy

Sri Sudarshan Prasad Vs Sri Ramanath Rai

Smt. Veena J G Vs Sri Sudheendra Prasad Jaganmohan