Dismissed¶30

Smt M C Rohini v. Sri C Manjunath

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026WP/1525/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227 Constitution of India; writ petition GM-CPC; alternate/alternative statutory remedy; revision Section 115 CPC; Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC; IA; O.S.No.3514/2012; order dated 18.10.2019; Annexure-A; LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-65) Bengaluru; Karnataka High Court 2026; dismissed as withdrawn; Tara Vitasta Ganju. Gist: forum-choice ruling - where Section 115 CPC revision is available against an order on an Order 7 Rule 11(a)/(d) application, that remedy ought to be used rather than an Article 227 writ; the merits of the impugned order were left untouched.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner granted liberty to withdraw and to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law for redressal of his wages. ¶30

Smt M C Rohini Vs Sri C Manjunath — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner granted liberty to withdraw and to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law for redressal of his wages.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether, against an order passed on the petitioner's IA under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) in O.S.No.3514/2012, the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy of revision under Section 115 CPC instead of approaching the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Where a remedy is provided for in the statute against such an order, that remedy (revision under Section 115 CPC) ought to have been exercised by the petitioner instead of filing this petition; given the existence of an alternate remedy, the Court finds that it is unable to rectify the grievance.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner (that the matter has been heard for long) is without any merit.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) No. 1525 of 2020, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 09.01.2026 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju (single judge). Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by Smt. M C Rohini seeking quashing of the order dt.18.10.2019 passed by the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru in O.S.No.3514/2012 on the IA filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, by which order the plaint filed by the plaintiff was allowed in part. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the remedy of revision under Section 115 of the CPC is ordinarily to be exercised against such an order; his plea that the matter had been heard for long was held to be without merit. The Court held that when a remedy is provided for in the statute against such an order, that remedy ought to have been exercised, and that, given the existence of an alternate remedy, it was unable to rectify. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law. No merits of the impugned order were adjudicated; no precedents cited.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1274 WP No. 1525 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 1525 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M C ROHINI W/O SRI S VIJAYABABU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.1, 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 3RD BLOCK VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVAI BENGALURU-560072.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH.P., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI C MANJUNATH S/O C CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.266, THUNGABHADRA ROAD, 10TH CROSS, V V NAGAR, KALLAHALLI EXTENTION, MANDYA CITY.

¶13

SRI GOPISETTY SRINIVAS S/O LATE K G KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.NO.1-24-625 PLOT NO.67, MARUTHI NAGAR, ROAD NO.5, TIRUMALGHERRY

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:1274 WP No. 1525 of 2020

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SECUNDARABAD ANDRA PRADESH-500015.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H B CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. PAVAN KUMAR.Y.DHONGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE HON'BLE TRIAL COURT I.E. HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH 65) IN O.S.NO.3514/2012 AND QUASH THE ORDER DT.18.10.2019 IN O.S.NO.3514/2012 ON IA FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) ON THE PENDING FILE OF THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-65) VIDE ANNEXUR-A AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 18.10.2019 in O.S.No.3514/2012 passed by the learned LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru. By the impugned order, the plaint filed by the plaintiff has been allowed in part.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that

¶25

the remedy of revision under Section 115 of the CPC is ordinarily to be exercised for such a dismissal. However, he

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1274 WP No. 1525 of 2020

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

submits that the matter has been heard for long. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit when a remedy is provided for in the statute against such an order, the remedy ought to have been exercised by the petitioner. However, that was not done. Instead the petitioner has filed this petition. The petition in view of given the existence of an alternate remedy, this Court finds that it is unable to rectify.

¶29

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and is granted liberty to withdraw the present petition to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law for redressal of his wages.

¶30

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶31

Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶32

MH/-

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Smt M C Rohini v. Sri C Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M C Rohini v. Sri C Manjunath

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 P v Jagadeesh Shastry Vs Sri Damji D Patel

Sri T K Poonacha Vs Sri K Kale Gowda

Sri K Kalegowda Vs T K Poonacha

Sri C T Purushothama Reddy Vs Sri Muniswami Reddy

Bibijaan Vs Mohammed Hussain

Tanvi Asset Holdings Llp, Vs Mr. C. Narayanappa