Defendant sought rejection of a bare-injunction plaint filed by an agreement-holder claiming possession, arguing the plaintiff was not the owner. The High Court held that only plaint averments matter under Order VII Rule 11 and found no ground to reject the plaint.
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:1738 CRP No. 623 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 623 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V.,ADVOCATE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2023 PASSED ON IA FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(A) AND (D) OF C.P.C PASSED IN
NC: 2024:KHC:1738 CRP No. 623 of 2023
O.S.NO.89/2022 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC AT DODDABALLAPURA, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
of agricultural land measuring 3-00 Acres in Survey No.12/P5, Situated at Chokkanahalli Village, Tubagere Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk and that the defendant is illegally trying to encroach upon his property, filed O.S.No.89/2022 for the relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
between the plaintiff and his vendor, tried to illegally encroach upon the suit schedule property. On the said grounds, the present suit is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:1738 CRP No. 623 of 2023
rejection of plaint. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:1738 CRP No. 623 of 2023
the plaintiff, if it is after notice to the defendant, the Trial Court will have to consider the affidavit, written statement
and objections filed by the defendant and also the documents produced by the parties and thereafter, come to a conclusion that whether prima facie plaintiff has been able to establish that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and whether there is any interference over the same by the defendant illegally without any right, title or interest. However, as already stated above, while considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC, the Trial Court is only required to consider whether, based on the allegations made in the plaint, whether the suit is maintainable or liable to be rejected.
8. In the instant case, for the reasons aforementioned,
one has to conclude that based on the allegations made in
the plaint, it is not a fit case to reject the same. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:1738 CRP No. 623 of 2023
dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaint in a suit for bare injunction based on possession under an agreement of sale was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Naseem Banu
Sri. B. Ramachandrappa
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
