Karnataka High Court
Sri Channabasappa S/O Shankarappa ... vs Sri Basaveshwar Dharma Fund Samsthe on 26 September, 2025
-1-
CRP No. 100017 of 2025
RESERVED ON : 17.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100017 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA BENNI
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC.
R/O. NEAR HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
U.B.HILL, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD 580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. BASAVESHWAR DHARMA FUND SAMSTHE
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE
HONARARY SECRETARY
SRI. BASAPPA MALLESHAPPA SURAGOND
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NOT KNOWN
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
R/O. U.B. HILL, DHARWAD 580001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH ...RESPONDENT
Date: 2025.09.26
14:38:10 +0530
(BY SRI. S.B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 17.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD, IN S.C.1/2021, PASSED ON
AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(D) OF CPC IN IA
NO.IV, AND REJECT THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
CRP No. 100017 of 2025
IN THIS CIVIL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 17.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
1. The revision petitioner has filed this petition
against the order dated 17.02.2025 passed on I.A. No.IV
filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition
are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession and
consequential relief of damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/-
per month from 06.11.2018 till the date of handing over
possession, alleging illegal occupation of the suit property.
4. After appearance, the defendant filed I.A. No.IV
under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the
CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint for want of jurisdiction.
The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court.
-3-
CRP No. 100017 of 2025
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the defendant has
preferred this revision petition.
5. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is
arbitrary, illegal, and unjustified. The Trial Court has failed
to appreciate the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction raised by
the defendant. The plaintiff has valued the suit at
Rs.20,00,000/-, but has chosen the Court of Small Causes
to initiate the proceedings for eviction. This is contrary to
law, since the provisions of the Karnataka Small Cause
Courts Act (for short, 'the Act') make it clear that civil suits
cognizable by the Court of Small Causes must not exceed
Rs.1,00,000/- in value.
6. Section 8(2) of the said Act further makes it clear
that the Court of Small Causes does not have jurisdiction
over suits whose subject-matter exceeds Rs.1,00,000/-.
7. The plaintiff has also sought recovery of damages
at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month commencing from
06.11.2018 till handing over of possession. If the period
between 06.11.2018 and the date of filing of the suit, i.e.,
-4-
CRP No. 100017 of 2025
06.01.2021, is considered, the total damages claimed
amount to Rs.13,00,000/-. Therefore, court fees ought to
have been paid on this claim before the competent Civil
Court. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to allow the
revision petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that there are no grounds to allow the revision
petition. It is contended that in view of Section 8(2) of the
Small Cause Courts Act, the Court of Small Causes has
jurisdiction to entertain an ejectment suit. With regard to
the valuation of Rs.20,00,000/- mentioned in the plaint, it is
submitted that the same was stated inadvertently, and
since the nature of the suit is one of ejectment, the market
value is immaterial. Hence, the said figure may be ignored.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent further
submitted that the plaintiff is willing to delete the prayer
seeking damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from
06.11.2018 till the date of handing over possession. On the
-5-
CRP No. 100017 of 2025
basis of this submission, he sought for dismissal of this
petition.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the
following points arise for consideration:
i. Whether the revision petitioner has made out
grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed
by the Trial Court?
ii. What order or decree?
11. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking eviction of
the defendant and possession of the suit property in favour
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also sought damages at the
rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from 06.11.2018 till handing
over possession.
12. Insofar as the prayer at column No.2 of the plaint
is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly
submitted that the plaintiff will undertake to delete the said
prayer relating to damages of Rs.50,000/- per month. In
view of this submission, no further discussion is required on
this aspect.
-6-
CRP No. 100017 of 2025
13. With regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, the main
argument advanced by the revision petitioner is that in para
12 of the plaint, the plaintiff himself has stated that the suit
property is valued at Rs.20,00,000/- for the purpose of
pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, according to the
petitioner, the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction.
However, in ejectment suits, the plaintiff is not required to
mention the market value of the property for pecuniary
jurisdiction. The plaintiff has sought eviction of the
defendant, which falls within the scope of Section 8 and
Schedule Article 4(a) of the Small Cause Courts Act. Thus,
irrespective of the market value of the property, the Court
of Small Causes has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
14. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the
material on record and rightly rejected the application. I do
not find any error or illegality in the impugned order
warranting interference. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
-7- CRP No. 100017 of 2025 i. The revision petition is dismissed.
ii. The plaintiff shall take necessary steps to delete prayer column No.2 in the plaint, which pertains to the claim of damages of Rs.50,000/- per month from 06.11.2018 till the date of handing over possession.
iii. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
( G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU