This Civil Revision addressed an appeal against the rejection of an application to dismiss an ejectment plaint. The High Court held that the Trial Court was justified in allowing the suit to proceed, dismissing the revision petition.
The civil revision petition was dismissed with no interference with the impugned order.
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 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 104 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA.V.MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VINITHA P C., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
…RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A.No.ii IN OF No.5646/2021 ON THE FILE OF XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SSESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. REJECTING THE IA.No.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII, RULE 11(a) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINT.
NC: 2024:KHC:8867 CRP No. 104 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision should interfere with the Trial Court's rejection of an application to reject the plaint in an ejectment suit.
Whether the pendency of a specific performance suit challenges the maintainability of the ejectment suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NoneReferred
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K. A. THOMAS S/O. K. V. ABRAHAM
T. L. SEBASTIAN @ SABASTIAN
GANESHWAR. S. L.
N S SANJAY GOWDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
