Dismissed

H. B. Devaraj v. H. K. Shivakumar

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2024CRP/364/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Civil Revision Petition challenged the Trial Court's rejection of a defendant's application seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that properties were bought via separate sale deeds. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding the suit maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was found to lack merit and was dismissed accordingly.

H. B. Devaraj Vs H. K. Shivakumar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:33741 CRP No. 364 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 364 OF 2024 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H. B. DEVARAJ S/O C H BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT VALLABHA BAI ROAD 3RD CROSS ROAD HASSAN 573 201.

¶8

H B HEMANNA @ HEMANTH S/O C H BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT VIJAYA NAGAR BADAVANE 2ND STAGE, HASSAN 573 201.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

H. K. SHIVAKUMAR S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT SANGAMESHWARA BADAVANE 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS HASSAN 573 201.

¶14

NAGENDRA GUPTA S/O BARATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT KUVEMPU NAGAR HASSAN 573 201.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B S, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:33741 CRP No. 364 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN OS.NO.314/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDERS

¶23

The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, wherein the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected.

¶24

The plaintiffs had instituted a suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction, alleging that the defendants were unlawfully interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The defendants, in response, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, contending that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and that the suit was not maintainable as the suit schedule properties were purchased through two separate sale deeds. Therefore, the defendants argued that a single, common suit could not be filed for properties acquired under distinct sale deeds.

¶25

Arguments of the learned counsel for both parties were heard and duly considered.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:33741 CRP No. 364 of 2024

¶28

Upon a perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs have clearly averred that the cause of action for filing the suit arose five days prior to the institution of the suit. Furthermore, there is no statutory or procedural bar in law that precludes the filing of a common suit in respect of multiple properties, even if they were purchased under different sale deeds, provided the cause of action is linked and the subject matter is interconnected. The trial court was correct in its observation that the suit, as framed, does not suffer from any defect concerning the maintainability due to the different sale deeds.

¶29

In light of the above, there is no illegality or procedural infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rightly rejected, as the suit does disclose a cause of action and is maintainable as a common suit. The revision petition, therefore, lacks merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

¶30

Pending I.As. if any do not survive for consideration.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶33

BKM

H. B. Devaraj v. H. K. Shivakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. B. Devaraj v. H. K. Shivakumar

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

Smt Aruna a L Vs the Authorized Officer

T K Vasudevan Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank

Sri. M. H. Uma Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Anand S/O Dasharath Kullur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Haleema Begum Vs the State of Karnataka

K.N. Raghavendra Vs K.T.Narayanashetty