M/S Wall Street Lounge Bar Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Pleasant Valley Development Pvt. Ltd.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:31355 RFA No. 2199 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2199 OF 2023 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S WALL STREET LOUNGE BAR PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.30, GROUND FLOOR, CHURCH STREET, CIVIL STATION, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAVINDRA H.P.

¶9

M/S. DECCAN INTERNATIONAL A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.42, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, DOLLARS LAYOUT, 4^TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI RAVINDRA H.P.

¶10

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SANDEEP S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

M/S. PLEASANT VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.102, EMBASSY PALACE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAHUL THANDANI.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI S. GURU PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31355 RFA No. 2199 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.956/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, CITY, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC, AND PLAINT IS REJECTED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) OF THE CPC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The present Regular First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the order dated 05.08.2023 passed in OS No. 956/2019 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil

¶24

and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (‘Trial Court’ for short) on I.A No. 2 filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action.

¶25

Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31355 RFA No. 2199 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The suit is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶29

“(i) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to furnish a) copy of the sanction plan from BBMP; b) copy of the Occupancy Certificate issued by BBMP; c) Certificate/approval from the Fire department; d) License issued by the Department of Electrical Inspectorate in respect to operation of Lifts in the building, pertaining to the schedule premises to the plaintiff;

¶30

(ii) mandatory injunction directing the defendant to comply with all its obligations under the Lease Deed dated 10.12.2015 read with the Amendment Deed dated 05.04.2017; and

¶31

(iii) for permanent injunction against the defendant, their men, agents, henchmen, employees or anyone claiming through or under them from illegally evicting the plaintiffs from the schedule property or interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over the schedule property, except in accordance with law.”

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31355 RFA No. 2199 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The parties admit their tenancy relationship. The lease in respect of the suit property was first executed on 10.12.2015 and thereafter on 05.04.2017. The defendant issued a notice dated 25.10.2018 alleging arrears of rent. The Trial Court rejected I.A No. 1 (temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) holding that no prima facie case was made out, the balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiffs, and no irreparable loss or injury would cause. It also emphasized delay and alleged rent defaults. By the same order, the Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint, substantially by adopting the very reasons assigned while refusing the interim relief.

¶35

It is not in dispute that defendant has instituted Com. OS No. 134/2024 seeking possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs. The very pendency of such a suit for possession prima facie indicates that the defendant is seeking to recover possession through lawful process and not by resorting to forcible eviction.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31355 RFA No. 2199 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

On a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Trial Court, while allowing I.A No. 2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint, has not recorded independent reasons referable to the statutory grounds enumerated under clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 Order VII. Normally absence of such reasoning would warrant interference and remand for fresh consideration.

¶39

However, this being a first appeal on facts and law, this Court is empowered to substitute its own reasoning if the record justifies sustaining the order. In the present case, the core relief sought in the plaint is protection from dispossession otherwise than in due process of law. In view of the admitted pendency of Com. OS No. 134/2024 filed by the defendant for possession, there is no immediate threat of forcible eviction outside the process of law. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint for the present injunction suit thus loses its immediacy, and continuation of the injunction suit alongside the possession proceedings may result in

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31355 RFA No. 2199 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

parallel and overlapping adjudication. Likewise, the obligations under the lease deed and the plaintiff’s claim for production of statutory approvals and compliance therewith can also be urged in Com. O.S.No.134/2024, either as a defence or by way of counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC, subject to the limitation and in accordance with law.

¶43

Therefore, while reasoning of the Trial Court for

¶44

rejecting the plaint is unsatisfactory, rejection itself does not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction in light of the subsequent and admitted fact of the possession suit. For the foregoing reason, this Court pass the following :

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The appeal is dismissed affirming the

¶47

order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint,

¶48

though for the reason stated supra.

¶49

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the appellants/plaintiffs to file an appropriate

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:31355 RFA No. 2199 of 2023