Dismissed

Mrs. Suraiya Parveen v. Mrs Famida Ibrahim

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026WP/5099/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a trial court order directing return of the plaint for proper valuation. The High Court held that an appeal lies against such an order under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC, making the Article 227 petition not maintainable, and dismissed it with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitioner granted liberty to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

Mrs. Suraiya Parveen Vs Mrs Famida Ibrahim — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1549 WP No. 5099 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.5099 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MRS. SURAIYA PARVEEN, W/O ISMAIL MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT SITE NO.180, BLOCK NO.8, CHOKABETTU, KRISHNAPURA POST, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE – 575 014.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VARUN SAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MRS. FAMIDA IBRAHIM, W/O K. S. IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT SAHARA HOUSE

¶15

UJJODI, MANGALORE – 574 145.

¶16

K. MOHAMMED RAHAMATHULA, S/O LATE K. CHAYYABBA BAVA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT BAVA’S COMPOUND VELENCIA, GORIGUDDA, MANGALORE – 574 145.

¶17

K. MOHAMMED AJMAL, S/O LATE K CHAYYABBA BAVA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, MUTTON MERCHANT, STALL NO.1, CENTRAL MARKET, NEAR ROOPAVANI TALKIES, MANGALORE – 574 145.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1549 WP No. 5099 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MRS. MASOODA MOIDIN, W/O B. S. MOIDIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NEAR EDENS CLUB, NANTHOOR, MANGALORE – 574 145.

¶21

MRS. ASMA MOHAMMAD, W/O N. MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 4^TH CROSS KADRI, SHIVABHAG, MANGALORE – 574 145.

¶22

MRS. GULNAZ SALEEM W/O SALEEM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT ‘BAITHUL WASIM”, 132/16, CHENANAYAPALYA, 14^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE – 30.

¶23

MRS. YASMIN MEHMOOD, W/O MR. MEHMOOD, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, FASHANET SHOP, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, 3^RD CROSS, LAKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 030.

¶24

K. MOHAMMED ASAF, S/O LATE K. CHAYYABBA SAVA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, MUTTON MARCHANT, STALL NO.1, CENTRAL MARKET, NEAR ROOPAVANI TALKIES, MANGALORE – 574 145.

¶25

MRS. ZULEKHA MUNAWAR, W/O MUNAWAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT RAHAMATHULLA COMPOUND, BEHIND CANARA BANK, NEAR ROSARIO CHURCH, PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE – 574 145

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:1549 WP No. 5099 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1, R3, R8 AND R9 ARE SERVED;

¶31

VIDE ORDER DATED 03.10.2023, NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶32

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.688 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE D.K. AS PER ANNEXURE-A, ETC

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The present petition seeks to challenge an order

¶38

dated 21.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. in Original Suyit No.688/2012 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”). By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has directed that the plaint be returned for proper valuation, to the plaintiff.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:1549 WP No. 5099 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

It is this order that is the subject matter of challenge

¶43

before this Court.

¶44

The attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is drawn to the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for an appeal in case of return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Order XLIII, Rule 1(a) of CPC, is set out below:

¶45

“ORDER XLIII

¶46

1. Appeals from orders. – An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely,-

¶47

(a) An order under Rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court except where the procedure specified in Rule 10-A of Order VII has been followed;”

¶48

In these circumstances, the petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed .

¶49

Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to take appropriate remedies, in accordance with law.

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1549 WP No. 5099 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

All rights and contentions of both parties are left

¶53

open.

¶54

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

¶55

BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Mrs. Suraiya Parveen v. Mrs Famida Ibrahim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Suraiya Parveen v. Mrs Famida Ibrahim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Rudranamma Vs Mr. Marulaiah

Viraj Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Durga Project Incorporations

Sri. Marappa M Vs Sri. Sadanandamurthy Bm

Sri. Sankalli Nagappa Vs Sankalli Mugappa

Mr. Mahadevanayaka Vs Mr. Venkataranganayaka

Sri Somanna Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer