The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the writ is not maintainable due to the availability of statutory revision under Section 115 CPC.
Writ petition rejected as not maintainable.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 11419 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
H. B. SHIVARAM, S/O LATE H.K. BACHANNA, AGE 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.172, 2ND MAIN, HEBBAL, BENGALURU NORTH – 560 024.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA T A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI. J.M.HARISH NAYAK, S/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED 32 YEARS, R/AT JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 560 102.
…RESPONDENT
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIDLAGATTA DATED 05.12.2019 IN RESPECT OF
NC: 2023:KHC:45565 WP No. 11419 of 2021
I.A.NO.8 UNDER ORDER NO.VII, RULE 11 (a) AND 11 (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, defendant in O.S.No.313/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Shidlaghatta, is before this Court, challenging the order dated 05.12.2019, rejecting I.A.No.8 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).
counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.
that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff is one for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful, lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. It is submitted that the petitioner-defendant
filed application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, praying to reject the plaint. Under impugned order dated 05.12.2019, I.A.No.8 is rejected. Against which, the present writ petition is filed. Registry has raised objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition would be maintainable against rejection of I.A.No.8 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC since it is an interlocutory order and the suit is not terminated. Further he contends that there is no decree to file appeal under
Section 96 of CPC and it is also not revisable under Section 115 of CPC since it would not fulfill all conditions of Section 115 of CPC.
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. M/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED & ANR. in CIVIL APPEAL NO.1689/2022 DATED 01.04.2022 and also on the
decision in the case of TEK SINGH VS. SHASHI VERMA AND ANR. in CIVIL APPEAL NO.1416/2019 DATED 04.02.2019, to say that writ petition would be maintainable against rejection of I.A.No.8 filed under VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.
decree and appeal is provided against such decree. But, if the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (f) of CPC is rejected, the remedy for rejection of application is to file revision under Section 115 of CPC. Section 115 of CPC provides for filing of revision, under the circumstances where, if the order had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. In the instant case also, if the order had been passed in favour of the petitioners on the application for rejection of plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the suit would have been finally disposed of. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the writ petition would not be maintainable when revision under Section 115 of CPC is available to the petitioner.
Revisional Court in CRP No.5/2012 and thereby remanding the matter to the said Court for reconsideration on the premise that Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint was under consideration in the said case. The Revisional Court had allowed the application filed Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and on appeal, High Court set aside the said order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Revisional Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the Revisional Court.
Court was considering the appeal arising out of the order passed on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Against the order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, revision was filed and in that circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that revision against orders on interlocutory application are not maintainable.
NC: 2023:KHC:45565 WP No. 11419 of 2021
are sustained. The writ petition stands rejected as not
maintainable.
Sd/JUDGE
SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Whether revision under Section 115 of CPC is the appropriate remedy when Order VII Rule 11 of CPC application is rejected.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. M/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED & ANR.Distinguished¶35
M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. M/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED & ANR. in CIVIL APPEAL NO.1689/2022 DATED 01.04.2022
TEK SINGH VS. SHASHI VERMA AND ANR.Referred¶38
TEK SINGH VS. SHASHI VERMA AND ANR. in CIVIL APPEAL NO.1416/2019 DATED 04.02.2019
3 provisions across 2 enactments
H.B. SHIVARAM
SRI. J.M.HARISH NAYAK
S.G. PANDIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
