SRI SOMASHEKAR v. SRI Y RAVICHANDRANATH

1. SRI SOMASHEKAR SON OF SRI RAMANNA, CURRENTLY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.71, KEMPEGOWDA MAIN ROAD, DASARAHALLI, HAF POST, BENGALURU EAST-560024. (BY SRI. SUNIL S.RAO., ADVOCATE) AND:

SRI Y RAVICHANDRANATH, SON OF C. YANGAPPA, CURRENTLY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.162, 5TH MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.1, VAPASANDRA, CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY-562101.

SRI Y VENKATACHALAPATHI, SON OF SRI YANAGAPPA, CURRENTLY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SREE KRISHNANUGRAHA DHAMA, BEHIND CACOON MARKET, WARD NO, 2 VAPASANDRA, CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. R.S.RAVI., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.7 - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13422 CRP No. 358 of 2023 IN OS NO. 25/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPUR. REJECTING THE IA NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1. A Revision is filed challenging an order by which the Trial Court has refused to reject the plaint.

2. It is not in dispute that the respondents – plaintiffs had instituted O.S. No.348/2014 against Central Bank of India and five persons, who had availed a loan from it and also against the present petitioner (who had been arrayed as defendant No.7) and said suit was for declaration that the respondents – plaintiffs were the owners of the plaint schedule property and for injunction to restrain the Bank from interfering with their possession.

In the said suit, on an application filed by defendant No.3 therein i.e., G.M.Narayanswamy, the plaint came to be rejected on the ground that the property had been sold to the present petitioner under the provisions of the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13422 CRP No. 358 of 2023 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) and therefore, the Trial Court had no jurisdiction.

Subsequently, the respondents – plaintiffs had proceeded to institute a suit O.S. No.25/2020 seeking for a declaration as against only the present petitioner, who had been arrayed as a defendant in O.S. No.348/2014. The respondents – plaintiffs have stated in their plaint that the rejection of their plaint in O.S. No.348/2014 would not be a hindrance for the present suit.

The Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the present suit is filed only against the petitioner seeking for a declaration that they were the owners of the property and on a meaningful reading of the plaint it was clear that the respondents – plaintiffs were claiming that their father had purchased a portion of Sy.No.98 measuring 16.5 guntas i.e., plaint schedule property, whereas the property being claimed was in - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13422 CRP No. 358 of 2023 respect of an extent of 25 guntas in very same survey number and therefore, the earlier rejection of the plaint was of no consequence, in the light of the provisions under Order VII Rule 13 of CPC.

A reading of the plaint indicates that the respondents claimed that their father had purchased a portion of Sy.No.98 measuring 16 guntas for which they were seeking for a declaration. It is also noticed that respondents – plaintiffs have averred that on the western side of their property, one Srinath had acquired the property and his sale deed indicated that he had purchased only 25 guntas and the sale deed also indicated that on the eastern side was land purchased by their father. They have thereafter contended that the petitioner herein was claiming that he had acquired ownership on the neighbouring land i.e., on the western side but he had no right over the said portion. This indicates that the dispute is to the property that the father of the respondents - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13422 CRP No. 358 of 2023 purchased vis-à-vis the land that is purchased by the petitioner herein.

In my view, the Trial Court was justified in refusing to accept the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC since the issues involved in the present plaint, would not enable the respondents to seek for rejection of the plaint on the ground that an earlier suit which had been filed against the Bank was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and the Revision is, therefore, dismissed.

It is needless to state that all the legal contentions of both the parties are left open to be adjudicated on the merits. Sd/- JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31