Sri. Eranna. D. M vs Sri. Madhusudhan. N. K
2022 Latest Caselaw 7429 Kant

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

      CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.156 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SRI ERANNA D.M.,
S/O ERANNA M.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2375, "DATTADHAMA",
1ST FLOOR, OPPOSITE TO HONNADEVI LAB,
S S PURAM MAIN ROAD,
TUMKUR - 572 102.                         ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.MANOHAR.B.K., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    SRI MADHUSUDHAN N.K.,
      S/O LATE N.T.KARIGIRAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
      R/AT CHIKKAGUNDAGAL VILLAGE,
      KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK,
      TUMKUR - 572 128.

2.    SRI YOGANANDA N.K.,
      S/O LATE N.T.KARIGIRAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
      R/AT CHIKKAGUNDAGAL VILLAGE,
      KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK,
      TUMKUR - 572 128.                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.BHARGAV.G., ADVOCATE)


      THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908.
                                       2




      THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                               ORDER

Sri.Manohar.B.K., learned counsel for petitioner and

Sri.Bhargav.G., learned counsel for caveators/

respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is listed for

admission.

3. The parties are referred to as per their

rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:

It is stated that plaintiffs - initiated action against

the defendant on the file of Senior Civil Judge and CJM

Tumakur in O.S.No.34/2020 seeking declaration of

ownership and possession and also for permanent

injunction.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the

defendant moved an application under Order VII rule 11

(a) of CPC to reject the plaint for not-disclosing a clear

right to sue/cause of action. The Trial Court rejected the

application vide order dated:22.03.2022. Hence, this

Revision Petition is filed on several grounds as set out in

the Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has urged

several contentions.

6. Heard the contentions and perused the

petition papers with care.

7. The short point which requires consideration is

whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the

application?

In the present case, the defendant has moved an

application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC.

The defendant has stated that the cause of action

plays a vital role in deciding the disputes between parties.

It is also stated that the plaintiff has not disclosed a clear

right to sue against him and he has not disclosed a cause

of action to file the suit.

Suffice it to note that cause of action is not defined

in the Code. The expression "cause of action" has acquired

a judicially settled meaning. Cause of action means bundle

of fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to

prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the

judgment of the Court. In the legal parlance the

expression "cause of action" is generally understood to

mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to

maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal; a group of

operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing;

a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a

remedy in court from another person.

It is true that a plaint which does not disclose any

cause of action should be rejected. But it would be

relevant to note that there is a clear difference between

the non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint and the

absence of cause of action for the suit. The ground for

rejection of plaint is failure to disclose a cause of action

and not that there is no cause of action for the suit. It is

not competent for the Court to go into the correctness or

otherwise of the allegations constituting the cause of

action, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations

constituting the cause of action is beyond the scope of

Order VII rule 11 of CPC.

Bearing these principles, let me see what facts I

have here.

The true copy of the plaint and the application filed

under Order VII rule 11 (a) of CPC and the statement of

objections are filed along with the Revision Petition. As

could be seen from the plaint, it is clear that the suit is

filed seeking the relief of ownership and permanent

injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants

or anybody claiming under him from interfering his

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property.

As is well known that the relevant facts which need

to be looked into for deciding an application for rejection

of the pliant are averments made in the plaint. For the

purpose of deciding an application an application under

clause (a) of order 7 rule 11 of CPC, the averments in the

plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in

the written statement or in the application would be wholly

irrelevant. The present case does not illustrate the

circumstances in which it would be appropriate to reject

the plaint.

While addressing argument, learned counsel for

petitioner strenuously urged that there are no materials/

averments with regard to the denial of title in the plaint.

Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the

decision of the Apex Court in RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND

OTHERS VS HEMANTH KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS in

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.5819 - 5822/2021.

I have considered the submission urged on behalf of

defendant and also perused the decision with care. I do

not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on

its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of

the aforesaid decision.

In my considered view, while considering the

application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is

not required to take into consideration neither the defense

set up by the defendant in his written statement nor the

averments made in the application for rejection of the

plaint. The question whether the plaint discloses any cause

of action is to be decided by looking at the averments

contained in the plaint itself. What has to be seen is

whether or not a meaningful reading of the plaint discloses

a cause of action. In the present case, a bare reading of

the plaint would certainly disclose the cause of action.

On facts and in all the circumstances of the case, the

trial judge is justified rejecting the application. I find no

reason to interfere with judge's order. Accordingly, the

revision petition is dismissed.

8. I see no reason to interfere with the judge's

order. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition dismissed at

the stage of admission itself.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TKN