Sri Y S Prakash Vs N T I (National Technological Institutions)

N T I (NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONS) HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.84, 1^ST FLOOR, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU -560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

SRI.M.V.SATHISH CHANDRA, S/O SRI.M.K.VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.126, 6^TH MAIN, POSTAL COLONY, SANJAYANAGAR,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:2318-DB RFA No. 97 of 2025

¶19

RMV 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶20

SRI.SHEKAR.H.S., S/O SRI. SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.302, SANTHRUPTHI APARTMENT, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, KODIGEHALLI RAILWAY GATE, VIRUPAKASHPURA, BENGALURU-560 097.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.G.S. KANNUR., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶23

SRI. G. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

¶24

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST

¶25

THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2024 PASSED ON

¶26

IA NO. 5 IN OS NO.7970/2022 ON THE FILE OF XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA NO. 5 FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2318-DB RFA No. 97 of 2025

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶32

This appeal has been listed with two objections (i) proper Court fee to be made good (ii) value of appeal to be stated at the valuation paragraph in the appeal memo.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant has shown us Receipt No.73208/2024-2025 in FR No.99/2025 to state that the amount of Rs.1,74,762/- has been deposited in the registry on 13.01.2025. If that be so, the objections at No.(i) above has been complied with.

¶34

Insofar as objection No.(ii) is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to paragraph-27 to contend that this appeal shall lie before the Division Bench. We are satisfied that the appeal lies before this Bench and hence the office objection No.(ii) stands overruled.

¶35

We have heard Sri Suresh Babu B N, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G S Kannur, learned Senior Counsel for the Caveator/respondent No.3.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2318-DB RFA No. 97 of 2025

¶37

The issue which falls for consideration in the

¶38

appeal is primarily in respect of an order passed by the Court of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.7970/2022, whereby the Trial Court has decided I.A. No.5 filed by the Defendant No.1 i.e., the respondent No.1 herein under Order VII Rule 11[a] & [d] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint as the appellant herein had not exercised the remedy as available under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short].

¶39

It is the conceded position that the said section stipulates that if in the eventuality a dispute or claim or assertion made by the appellant touches the constitution, management or the business of the Defendant No.1Society until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar, or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2318-DB RFA No. 97 of 2025

¶41

he claims, no suit can be initiated. It is conceded that no such notice was issued to the respondent No.1.

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellant would concede that the prayer (b) and (c) made in the suit were also for declaration and injunction directed against the respondent No.1-Society as well.

¶43

He also states that the reason for filing the appeal is also because of the interim order initially granted by the Trial Court, which was modified by this Court directing the parties not to enter into the suit schedule property which is a vacant site and also not put up any further construction in the suit schedule property till the

¶44

disposal of the suit. The learned counsel states that with the dismissal of the suit, the interim order of this Court dated 27.01.2023 in MFA No.265/2023 which the appellant enjoyed would not be available to him. In fact, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.3 herein has inducted a tenant in the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2318-DB RFA No. 97 of 2025

¶46

schedule property and there is a likelihood, that the nature

¶47

of the property shall be changed.

¶48

On the other hand, Sri G S Kannur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 states that a tenant has been inducted, after the dismissal of the suit and as per his instructions from the counsel on record, the respondent No.3 does not intend to create third party rights or dispose of/sell the schedule property in question. He also states that the respondent No.3 shall not change the nature of the schedule property as it exists today.

¶49

On this submission, learned counsel for the appellant states that the submissions be taken on record to enable the appellant work out his remedy under Section 125 of the Act and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

¶50

If that be so, the submissions made by Sri G S Kannur on instructions are taken on record, which shall continue to bind the respondent No.3 for a period of 75

¶51