Sri Lourdes @ Mohan vs Sri Joseph @ Perimal
2021 Latest Caselaw 5232 Kant

                              1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

      CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.291 OF 2020

BETWEEN:


1.     SRI. LOURDES @ MOHAN,
       S/O LATE HRUDAYA MARY,
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.681, 3RD CROSS,
       5TH MAIN NEAR RAJ KUMAR PARK,
       KAMMANAHALLI,
       BENGALURU NORTH,
       ST. THOMAS TOWN,
       BENGALURU - 560 084.

2.     FRANCIS,
       S/O LATE M.JOSHEPH,
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

3.     SMT. LEELAMMA,
       W/O LATE M. LURDHU SWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

4.     SMT. NIRMALA,
       D/O LATE M. LURDHU SWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

5.     MARIYAPPA,
       S/O LATE M. LURDHU SWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

6.     AROGYA SWAMY,
       S/O LATE M.LURDHU SWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                             2


7.     BALARAJ,
       S/O LATE M.LURDHU SWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

8.     JASMINE MERITA,
       D/O LATE M. LURDHU SWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

9.     KISHAN KUMAR,
       S/O LATE M LURDHU SWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

10.    GIRISH PAL,
       S/O LATE M.LURDHU SWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

11.    RAJESH KUMAR,
       S/O LATE M LURDHU SWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

       PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 11 ARE
       R/AT NO.119, I BLOCK,
       TATTAGUPPE VILLAGE,
       UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
       BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
       BENGALURU - 560 082.
                                        ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.VIDYA S SELVOMONY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. JOSEPH @ PERIMAL,
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA @ MARISWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT I BLOCK, THATTAGUPPA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.                  ... RESPONDENT

     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 14.08.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S NO.7468/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.2
                               3


FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a)(d) CPC FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.


    THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON                FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

This revision petition is filed challenging the order

dated 14.08.2020 passed by the Court of XXXV Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth

referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) under Order VII

Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, by

which, the plaint was rejected.

2. In view of the fact that the rejection of plaint

amounts to decree, the revision petition filed under Section

115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable.

Hence, the office-objections raised regarding the

maintainability is upheld.

3. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed

as not maintainable.

It is however open for the petitioners to file an

appeal in accordance with law. If an appeal is filed, the

time consumed in pursuing the revision petition shall be

enlarged for calculating the limitation.

Office is directed to return the certified copy of the

impugned order after collecting an authenticated copy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/NM