C S Kodandaramaraju v. Mrs. S Bhagyalaxmi

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2025CRP/464/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka; CRP No. 464 of 2025 (IO); Justice M.Nagaprasanna; decided 17-09-2025; Section 115 CPC; Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC; rejection of plaint; arbitration clause in memorandum of understanding; additional issue on jurisdiction; permanent injunction suit O.S.No.2366/2021; LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City; petition disposed with liberty to urge contentions before trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without deciding the Order VII Rule 11 question; liberty reserved to the petitioner to urge all contentions before the concerned Court qua the additional jurisdictional issue; the prayers to set aside the impugned order and allow IA No.5 were not granted. ¶¶46

C S Kodandaramaraju Vs Mrs. S Bhagyalaxmi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.2366/2021 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the memorandum of understanding between the parties provides for arbitration as the mode of resolution of the dispute rather than a civil suit. +1 more

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

In light of the concerned Court having framed an additional issue qua jurisdiction with particular reference to the Arbitration clause in the memorandum of understanding, the High Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the revision petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions before the concerned Court qua the additional issue now framed.

¶¶45

Key takeaways

The rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC will not come in the way of the projection of the petitioner qua the additional issue already framed.ratio¶¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC by defendant No.1 against the order dated 17.04.2025 on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.2366/2021 (LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City) dismissing his application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint in a permanent-injunction suit, on the ground that the memorandum of understanding between the parties projected arbitration as the mode of dispute resolution. During the pendency, the trial court framed an additional issue on jurisdiction with particular reference to the Arbitration clause in the memorandum of understanding. The High Court (M.Nagaprasanna, J.) disposed of the petition without ruling on the Order VII Rule 11 objection, reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions before the trial court qua the additional issue, and observed that the rejection of the Order VII Rule 11 application will not come in the way of the petitioner's projection qua that issue.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37084 CRP No. 464 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 464 OF 2025 (IO)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

C. S. KODANDARAMARAJU

¶11

S/O SHESMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O SABARI NEST, NO. 20, 1^ST CROSS,

¶12

GURU RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, 7^TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MRS. S. BHAGYALAXMI

¶18

D/O LATE K.SHAMNNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O KAUSTHUBHA, NO. 304,

¶19

4^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, HBSCS,

¶20

1^ST STAGE, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:37084 CRP No. 464 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

NAGENDRA T.V.

¶25

S/O VENKATESHA SHETTY, FLAT NO.G3, SOUMYA APARTMENTS, 6^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, AESC LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, RMV EXTENSION, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. K. M. JAGANATH, ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST ORDER DATED 17.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.2366/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:37084 CRP No. 464 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer:

¶36

"Wherefore the petitioner pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

¶37

a. To call for records and set aside the order dated 17/4/2025 in O.S.No.2366/2021 passed by the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-63) on IA No.5 and further order to allow the IA No.5 filed by the petitioner;

¶38

b. To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fir in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶39

The petitioner is defendant No.1 and respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. The plaintiff institutes a suit seeking permanent injunction in OS.No.2366/2021 against respondent No.2. The suit progresses further, written statements are filed, issues are framed and the trial is on. At that point in time, the petitioner files an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the score that the memorandum of understanding between the two, would project an arbitration to be the mode of resolution of the dispute and not institution of a Civil suit.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that based upon the said submissions, now an additional issue

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:37084 CRP No. 464 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

is framed with regard to the jurisdiction before the concerned Court and that is pending consideration and the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC would come in the way of consideration of the said issue.

¶45

In the light of the said circumstance of the concerned Court now framing an additional issue qua the jurisdiction with particular reference to the Arbitration clause in the memorandum of understanding, I deem it appropriate to dispose the subject petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all the contentions before the concerned Court qua the additional issue that is now framed. The rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC will not come in the way of the projection of the petitioner qua the additional issue that is already framed.

¶46

For the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.

¶47

Ordered accordingly.

¶48

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶49

PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

C S Kodandaramaraju v. Mrs. S Bhagyalaxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C S Kodandaramaraju v. Mrs. S Bhagyalaxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mycon Construction Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Mohammed Shareef @ Mohammed Sharief @ Fahim Haji Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanappa K Vs Sri Narayanaswamy a

Smt. Bhagya Latha Vs Thomas Sathyadas

M/S Shrinivas Trading and Transports Vs M/S Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited