Dismissed¶¶78

Sri. Haribabu Reddy v. Narayanappa Dead by Lrs

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025MSA/52/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint; Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; amendment of plaint; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; Order 6 Rule 18 CPC extension of time to amend plaint; cost Rs.5,000/-; specific performance of contract; agreement for sale dated 29.03.1988; Sy.No.14 Amanipurnasagarakere village, Chikkaballapur; OS.No.560/2006; RA No.37/2020; Miscellaneous Second Appeal; High Court of Karnataka; plaint-rejection set aside and matter remanded to Trial Court; second appeal dismissed; WP.No.40028/2014; SLP No.9547/2019 dismissed 15.04.2019.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the Trial Court directed to consider the applications pending before it expeditiously, since the suit is of the year 2006. ¶¶78

Sri. Haribabu Reddy Vs Narayanappa Dead by Lrs — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the Trial Court directed to consider the applications pending before it expeditiously, since the suit is of the year 2006.

¶¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2022 of the First Appellate Court in RA No.37/2020, setting aside the Trial Court's rejection of the plaint and remanding the matter, suffers from illegality warranting interference in this second appeal and restoration of the Trial Court's order dated 17.01.2020. +1 more

¶¶51

Court's answer

There is no illegality in the order passed by the First Appellate Court remanding the matter to the Trial Court; the appellants remain at liberty to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court.

¶¶72

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court is required to consider the application under Order 6 Rule 18 CPC and pass an appropriate order, and thereafter consider the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; the plaint cannot be finally dealt with under Order 7 Rule 11 while the amendment-time application remains unconsidered.

¶¶76

Key takeaways

The cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed for amendment of the plaint has already been paid and has been accepted by the defendant before the Trial Court pursuant to the order dated 15.10.2019 extending the time for payment, belying the appellants' contention that the cost remained unpaid.ratio¶¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u), CPC by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in OS.No.560/2006 (specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 29.03.1988) against the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree dated 14.02.2022 in RA No.37/2020, which had set aside the Trial Court's rejection of the plaint and remanded the matter. Held, dismissing the appeal: (i) the plaintiffs' application under Order 6 Rule 18, CPC seeking extension of time to amend the plaint was still pending and unconsidered before the Trial Court, while the cost of Rs.5,000/- for amendment stood already paid and accepted by the defendant pursuant to the order dated 15.10.2019 (judgment para 10); (ii) consequently there is no illegality in the First Appellate Court's remand, and the Trial Court is required to first consider the Order 6 Rule 18 application, pass an appropriate order, and only thereafter dispose of the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC (judgment paras 11-12). Trial Court directed to decide the pending applications expeditiously since the suit is of the year 2006.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46110 MSA No. 52 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2022 (RO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. HARIBABU REDDY, S/O. G. K. RAGHURAMA REDDY HINDU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT REDDIGOLLAVARALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DIST- 562 103

¶9

SMT. RAMA DEVI W/O. RAMAKRISHNAPPA D/O. G.K. RAGHURAM REDDY HINDU

¶10

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MADIVALA VILLAGE VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DIST- 563 101

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

NARAYANAPPA DEAD BY LRs

¶16

SMT. PAPAMMA W/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA HINDU MAJOR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46110 MSA No. 52 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

N. VENKATARAYANAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA HINDU MAJOR

¶21

KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA HINDU MAJOR

¶22

ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA HINDU MAJOR

¶23

SRINIVASAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA HINDU MAJOR

¶24

MUNIVENKATASWAMY S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA HINDU

¶25

MAJOR

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE

¶27

R/AT BYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DIST- 562 104

¶28

SMT DYAVAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA W/O NARAYANASWAMY

¶29

HINDU MAJOR R/AT CHIKKANAREPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, MITTEMARI HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DIST- 561 207

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:46110 MSA No. 52 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

SMT. CHANNAKRISHNAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA W/O DEVARAJ HINDU MAJOR R/AT KESHAVARA VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DIST- 562 101

¶34

SMT. RADHA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA W/O SRINIVAS HINDU MAJOR R/AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DIST- 562 015

¶35

SMT RUKMINI D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA W/O SHIVA KUMAR HINDU MAJOR

¶36

R/AT VAPASANDRA CHICKBALLAPURA TOWN PIN 562 101

¶37

SRI. G.K. RAGHURAMA REDDY S/O LATE G. KEMPA REDDY HINDU MAJOR R/AT REDDIGOLLAVARALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DIST- 562 103

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(R1 TO R8 SERVED; VIDE ORDER DTD 07.08.24, NOTICE TO R9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:46110 MSA No. 52 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO.37/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKABALLAPUR., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.560/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHICKBALLAPUR. ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (a) AND (d) OF CPC., REMANDING BACK AND DIRECTED THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT TO RE-ADMIT THE SUIT IN ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER AND PROCEED WITH THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶44

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

Appellants being defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit OS.No.560/2006 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') is impugning the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2022 passed in RA No.37/2020 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:46110 MSA No. 52 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

(hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') and to restore the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Trial Court.

¶52

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

¶53

Heard Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent no representation. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.

¶54

The plaintiffs have filed the suit OS.No.560/2006 before the Trial Court against the defendants seeking specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement for sale dated 29.03.1988. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the defendants being the owner of the schedule property i.e., 1 acre 5 guntas out of 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.14 of Amanipurnasagarakere village, Chikkaballapura, agreed to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs.23,000/-. But the sale deed could not be executed due to the ban on registration of the land in question.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:46110 MSA No. 52 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have also filed written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs, and also contended that the suit of plaintiffs is barred by limitation.

¶59

It is stated that plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission for amendment of plaint. The Trial Court rejected the said application seeking amendment. The said Order rejecting IA No.5 filed by the plaintiffs was challenged before this Court by filling WP.No.40028/2014. This Court allowed the petition. Thus, IA No.5 filed by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court, came to be allowed, on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the defendants, within next date of hearing.

¶60

It is the contention of the appellants that the plaintiffs have neither paid the cost nor amended the plaint. In the meantime, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed two applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. The defendants have challenged the order passed by this Court in WP.No.40028/2014 by preferring SLP

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:46110 MSA No. 52 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

No.9547/2019. The said SLP came to be dismissed on 15.04.2019 by clarifying that the amendment will be subject to just exception and all the contentions available to the defendants/petitioners are left open.

¶65

In the meantime, defendants filed one more application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The plaintiffs filed another application under Order 6 Rule 18 of CPC praying extension of time to amend the plaint. This Court extended the time for payment of cost for the purpose of amending the plaint.

¶66

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that even though, the cost of Rs.5,000/- paid, plaint was never amended till date. In the meantime, the Trial Court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed RA No.37/2020. The First Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment and set aside the order rejecting the plaint, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to first consider the application filed under the Order 6

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:46110 MSA No. 52 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Rule 18 of CPC and thereafter, dispose off the application, which is called in question in this appeal.

¶71

On consideration of the facts of the case as narrated above, I find that this Court as per the order dated 15.10.2019 extended the time for paying cost and accordingly, cost of Rs.5,000/- is already paid, rather defendant before the Trial Court has accepted the cost of Rs.5,000/-. But it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs have not amended the plaint till date. The fact remains that, application under Order 6 Rule 18 of CPC seeking extension of time for amending the plaint is still pending before the Trial Court, which is not considered till date.

¶72

Under such circumstances, the First Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment, remanding the matter to Trial Court with a direction to first consider the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and thereafter, dispose off the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the defendants, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the First Appellate Court. The appellants will be at liberty to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court. However, the

¶73

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:46110 MSA No. 52 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Trial Court is required to consider the application under Order 6 Rule 18 of CPC and pass an appropriate Order and thereafter, consider the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

The appeal is dismissed .

¶79

The Trial Court is directed to consider the applications

¶80

pending before the Court expeditiously, since suit is of the year 2006.

¶81

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶82

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri. Haribabu Reddy v. Narayanappa Dead by Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Haribabu Reddy v. Narayanappa Dead by Lrs

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

Sri S H Kantharaju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath Vs Deputy Registrar

Chikkadasenahalli Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Obalamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri T Gnaneshwar Vs Sri H S Puttashankara

Smt. Hanumakka Vs Sri. Madduraiah