Yellappa vs Geeta Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 5457 Kant

                            1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2022

                        PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

           REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1799/2021

BETWEEN:

1.   YELLAPPA
     S/O SHANMUKHAPPA GADDI
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     R/O JAGIRGUDADUR
     KUSHTAGI TALUK
     KOPPAL DISTRICT PIN-583277

2.   ANANTRAO
     S/O MUDDURAOKHONPUR
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     R/O JAGIRGUDADUR
     KUSHTAGI TALUK
     KOPPAL DISTRICT PIN-583277

3.   PUTRAPPA
     S/O PARAPPA SHIRGUMPI
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
     OCC-AGRI , R/O JAGIRGIDADUR
     KUSHTAGI TALUK
     KOPPAL DISTRICT PIN-583277

4.   HANUMAPPA
     S/O SHIVANANDAPPA KAREKANAKAPPANAVAR
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     R/O JAGIRGIDADUR
     KUSHTAGI TALUK
     KOPPAL DISTRICT PIN-583277
                               2




5.   SHARANAPPA
     S/O PARASAPPA MALGITTI
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC-AGRI
     R/O JAGIRGUDADUR
     KUSHTAGI TALUK
     KOPPAL DISTRICT PIN-583277

6.   SHARANAPPA
     S/O HANUMAPPA NEELAGUNDA
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC-AGRI
     R/O JAGIRGIDADUR
     KUSHTAGI TALUK
     KOPPAL DISTRICT PIN-583277
                                           .. APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V.P. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR APPELLANTS 1 AND 3 TO 6.
SRI. M.C. HUKKERI, ADV. FOR APPELLANT NO.2)


AND:

1 . GEETA BAI
    W/O GOVINDACHARYA KOLLI
    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
    OCC-HOUSE WIFE
    R/O NEAR AMBABHAVANI TEMPLE
    HANUMASAGARA KUSHATAGI TALUK
    KOPPAL DISTRICT PIN-583277

2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
    ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN
    KOPPAL DISTRICT PIN-583277



3 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    REVENUE DIVISION
    DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN
    KOPPAL DISTRICT

4 . TAHSILDAR
    KUSHTAGI TALUK
    KOPPAL DISTRICT-583277
                               3




5 . SUB REGISTRAR
    MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA BUILDING
    KUSHTAGI TALUK
    KOPPAL DISTRICT-583277
                                       .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR R1.
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2 TO R5.)


     THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 22.12.2021 PASSED ON IA No.III IV AND VIII IN OS
No.343/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KUSHTAGI, REJECTING THE IA No.III FILED UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 1 AND 2 AND REJECTING THE IA No.IV FILED UNDER ORDER
26 RULE 9 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE IA No. VIII FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11 R/W SEC.15 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'CPC')

challenging the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushtagi in O.S.No.343/2021 on

I.A.No.VIII, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge has

rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed a suit for

declaration and injunction. After service of summons, the

respondents appeared through their counsel and have filed

the written statement and also filed I.A.VIII under Order

VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. Along with

the said I.A., the plaintiffs have also filed I.A.III under

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and I.A.IV under Order

XXVI Rule 9 of CPC. The trial Court has clubbed all the

three I.As. and passed an order on I.A.VIII rejecting the

plaint. While passing the order, no reasons have been

assigned. Since the application is filed under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to look into the pleadings of

the plaint and has to pass the order on I.A. Since, the trial

Court has not assigned any reasons to allow the I.A.VIII,

we are of the opinion that the matter requires to be

remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order

dated 22.12.2021 passed in O.S.No.343/2021 is set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to decide

I.A.VIII first in accordance with law. If I.A. VIII is allowed,

then consideration of other applications would not arise and

if, I.A.VIII is rejected, then the trial court shall consider the

other applications in accordance with law.

4. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

Since the parties have appeared before this Court their

counsel, the parties are directed to appear before the trial

Court on 08.04.2022 without any further notice from the

trial Court.

The trial Court is directed to dispose of the application

on or before 23.04.2022.

In view of disposal of the appeal, all pending

applications are disposed off. The office is directed to

return the original cancellation deed produced by

respondent No.1 along with the memo dated 11.03.2022

forthwith.'

The registry is directed to communicate this order to

the trial Court immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE kmv