Mr. B K Kantha Reddy Vs Nitesh Estates Limited

MR. GOVINDACHARY S/O LATE DASACHARI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/A 17/1, AMBALIPURA, AGARA POST, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560034. SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

NITESH ESTATES LIMITED PREVIOUSLY NITESH ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NITESH TIMESQUARE, 7TH FLOOR, NO.8, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27503 WP No. 13705 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REPRESENTED BY MR. K.B. SWAMY,

¶21

MR B.K. NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE T.KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR R/A NO.87, AMBALIPURA, HDFC BANK ROAD, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560102.

¶22

MR. B.K. ANANTHA REDDY S/O LATE T.KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR R/A NO.31/2324, 6TH CROSS, BELLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST-560103.

¶23

MRS. B.K. DHANALAKSHMI D/O LATE T KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR, R/A NO.416, 2ND B CROSS, 21ST MAIN, 2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102

¶24

MRS. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE T KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR, R/A NO.31/2324, 6TH CROSS, BELLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST-560103.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.SMT.LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27503 WP No. 13705 of 2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

V/C/O DATED 11.06.2025 NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 HELD SUFFICIENT;

¶30

V/C/O DATED 22.07.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPESNED WITH (MEMO FILED IN COURT)).

¶31

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2020 PASSED IN COMMERCIAL O.S. NO.25204/2018 PASSED BY THE LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 84) VIDE ANNXUREA AND ETC.,

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶35

"i. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or

¶36

any other writ setting aside the Order dated 02.11.2020 passed in Commercial OS.No.25204/2018 passed by the LXXXIII Addl.

¶37

City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 84) vide Annexure-A;

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27503 WP No. 13705 of 2020

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ii. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus

¶41

or any other Writ directing the LXXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 84) to dispose of IA No.2 vide Annecure-D within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court as expeditiously as possible;

¶42

iii. Pass such other order/s or grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶43

Sri Nishanth.A.V., the learned counsel for the

¶44

petitioners, submits that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of Letter of Intent dated 01.06.2017. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC., seeking for rejection of plaint. The plaintiff has filed objection to the said application. The Trial Court, vide its impugned order, deferred consideration of IA.No.2 until further orders stating that consideration of IA.No.2 solely

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27503 WP No. 13705 of 2020

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

on the ground that on the given date there was no representation on behalf of the defendants. It is trite law that while adjudicating an application for rejection of plaint, it is the duty of the Trial Court to consider and proceed. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.ROJA v. U.S.RAYUDU AND ANOTHER¹ , and seeks to allow the petition.

¶48

Per contra , Smt.Latha learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-plaintiff supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court recorded that the petitioners/applicants were not present on the date hearing, hence, the case is posted for further stage. It is submitted that said application will be considered along with main matter. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶49

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶50

counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the

¶51

1 (2016) 14 SCC 275)

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27503 WP No. 13705 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶55

The records indicate that the respondent No.1 who is the plaintiff, filed a suit in OS.No.25204/2018 for the relief of specific performance of Letter of Intent dated 01.06.2017 and other reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioners who are the defendant Nos.1 and 6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) R/w Section 151 of CPC., seeking for rejection of the plaint. The records further indicate that the plaintiff has filed objections to the said application and thereafter petitioners have also filed written arguments in support of the said application. However, the Trial Court, without considering the said application on merits, proceeded with the suit.

¶56

In my considered view, the Trial Court committed an error in deferring consideration of said application.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:27503 WP No. 13705 of 2020

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶61

R.K.ROJA referred (supra) held as under;

¶62

" 5. Once an application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial. There is no point or sense in proceeding with the trial of the case, in case the plaint (election petition in the present case) is only to be rejected at the threshold. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to file the application for rejection before filing his written statement. In case the application is rejected, the defendant is entitled to file his written statement thereafter (see Saleem Bhai V. State of Maharashtra). But once an application for rejection is filed, the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial court. To quote the relevant portion from para 20 of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Case: (SCC pp. 148-49) "

¶63

Keeping in mind the law laid down by the

¶64

Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion

¶65

that the writ petition is deserves to be allowed.

¶66

For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to

¶67

pass the following:

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27503 WP No. 13705 of 2020

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i. The writ petition is hereby allowed .

¶72

ii. The impugned order dated 02.11.2020 passed in OS.No.25204/2018 by the LXXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 84), is hereby set aside.

¶73

iii. The Trial Court is directed to consider IA.No.2 filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) R/w Section 151 of CPC., in accordance with the law by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioners and to the respondent No.1.

¶74

No Order as to cost.

¶75

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶76

SRK

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Mr. B K Kantha Reddy v. Nitesh Estates Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. B K Kantha Reddy v. Nitesh Estates Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Syed Hameed Vs Sri Ramesh

Basavaraju Vs Eshwarappa

Sri Shankaregowda Vs Sri Channegowda

Smt Malathi a S Vs Mr H K Nagaraju

Sri. Ramappa Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Sri. Narasimhaiah Vs Sri.Maregowda