Petitioners challenged rejection of their Order VII Rule 11 application seeking rejection of a specific performance suit. The High Court held that on the plaint averments, dispossession in 2021 and refusal communicated on 07.06.2023 made the 2023 suit within time, and dismissed the revision petition.
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, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100108 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M. L. VANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER 25.07.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA IN O.S NO. 42/2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.III, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 25.07.2024, passed by Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Karwar, in O.S.no.42/2023 on I.A.no.III, this petition is filed.
submitted, though building was constructed in 1997 and plaintiff was put in possession, sale deed could not be executed as property was joint family property. Thereafter, plaintiff had stated that on 01.05.2021, defendant had vacated tenant, dispossessed plaintiff and demolish building. It was submitted, there were absolutely no averments about exercise of rights of tenant by plaintiff. Therefore, there was no proper depiction of cause of action in plaint.
stipulated that time would begin to run from date fixed for specific performance and if no such date was fixed, from date when plaintiff had notice that such performance was refused. It was submitted, since as per plaintiff, sale deed was to be executed after putting plaintiff in possession upon completion of construction and said event had occurred in 1997, suit filed in year 2023 would be barred by limitation. Said aspect was not properly appreciated by Trial Court. On said grounds, sought for allowing revision petition.
construction of shop premises and handing over of possession.
action, suit is filed with prayer for putting plaintiff back in possession.
dismissed.
In view of dismissal, I.A.no.1/2024 also stands
rejected.
Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE
VB CT-ASC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action justifying rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Whether the suit for specific performance filed in 2023 was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Anwar Ibrahim Khan
Ashfaq Ibrahim Khan
Sayeeda Ibrahim Khan
Shakeela Munaf Shaikh
Shabana Salim Momin
Shireen Iqbal Sayed
Ravi V.Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
