Revision against an order dismissing an application to reject a plaint filed by defendants challenging maintainability of partition suit. Held, plaint cannot be rejected in part; order upheld.
Petition disposed of; no illegality found in the impugned order rejecting the plea to reject plaint in part.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:45788 CRP No. 175 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.175 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O. M.V. VEERABHADRAIAH, R/AT MANNE VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN – 562 132.
Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI UDAY K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:45788 CRP No. 175 of 2024
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT GANIGARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
NC: 2024:KHC:45788 CRP No. 175 of 2024
RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 12 ARE R/AT SITE NO.27/19, GAYATHRI NILAYA, KEMPANNA LAYOUT, JALAHALLI POST, BENGALURU – 560 013. ... RESPONDENTS
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2024 PASSED ON I.A. IN O.S.NO.685/2016 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order passed by the trial Court rejecting an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
NC: 2024:KHC:45788 CRP No. 175 of 2024
from Item No.1 of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs have also sought their legitimate share in other suit schedule properties. The trial Court, considering that a plaint cannot be rejected in part, rightly passed the impugned order. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE
YKL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court committed an error of law by rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) which sought to dismiss a suit for partition in part.
Whether a plaint can be rejected in part when only a portion of the suit schedule property is affected by a prior partition.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. GANGAMMA
SMT. LATHA PRABHAT AMASHI
SRI ANJINAPPA
SMT. RATHNA
KUM. G.M. BHAVANA
MR. G.M. KIRAN
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
