Karnataka High Court
Sri. M Vajrappa vs Smt. Bhagyamma on 4 August, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27376
CRP No. 480 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 480 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. M VAJRAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE
NYATHAPPA LAYOUT
HULIMAVU POST, BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU-560076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O B C NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
Digitally signed R/AT NO.44/2L ARAKERE VILLAGE
by
DHANALAKSHMI MULIMAVU POST, BEGUR HOBLI
MURTHY BENGALURU-560076.
Location: High
Court of 2. SMT PUTTAMMA
Karnataka
W/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED MAJOR
ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET
9TH MAIN ROAD, PUTTENAHALLI
7TH PHASE, J P NAGAR
BENGALURU-560078.
3. SMT RAMAKKA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27376
CRP No. 480 of 2022
ARAHALLI VILLAGE
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-61.
4. SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA
W/O SRI CHOWDAPPA
AGED 66 YEARS
5. MR SRINIVASA
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED 41 YEARS
6. MR RAVI
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED 41 YEARS
7. SMT MANJULA
D/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED 37 YEARS
R4 to r7 are R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE
NYATHAPPA LAYOUT
HULIMAVU POST, BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU-560076.
8. SRI N JAYAMARAM REDDY
S/O NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
9. SMT J SHANTHA
W/O SRI N JAYARAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R8 AND R9 R/AT NO.44/N
NYATHAPPA LAYOUT
IIM POST ARAKERE
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560076.
10. SMT T V SUSHEELAMMA
W/O S N SUBBAIAH
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:27376
CRP No. 480 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.44/2C, ARAKERE VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
11. SRI JAYARAMA REDDY M
S/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT NO.44/2B, ARAKERE VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-61.
12. CHANDRASHEKAR AITHAL
S/O B ANANTHA AITHAL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.810, E BLOCK 2ND STAGE
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.
13. W RAJENDRA
S/O W NARASIMHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT PLOT NO.36
HOUSE NO.9-66/4
NEW MARUTHINAGAR
TIRUPATHI-517502
ANDHRA PRADESH.
14. RAJNEES KUMAR
S/O HARERAM CHJOUDHARY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
15. SMT SMITA KUMARI
W/O RAJNEES KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R14 & 15 ARE R/AT NO.140
VEACON AVENUE
APT NO.1 JERSEY CITY
NEW JERSEY AND REPRESENTED BY T
HEIR GPA HOLDER SRI SANNY KUMAR
S/O UMASHANKAR
PRASAD SINGH
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:27376
CRP No. 480 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.44/2-A
NEW NUMBER-1101
NYATAPPA LAYOUT
AREKERE BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H M GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4:
SRI. S ESWARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6:
NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 21.07.2020:
NOTICE TO R7 TO R15 ARE DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 23.06.2023)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2022 PASSED ON I.A IN
OS.NO.2560/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING
THE I.A FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Even though the matter is posted for orders, with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter
is heard finally.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant
under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated
NC: 2023:KHC:27376
CRP No. 480 of 2022
24.5.2022 passed by the XXXIV Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A. filed under Section 151
of CPC in O.S.No.2560/2010.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff had filed the suit for partition. On service
of summons to defendants, defendants appeared and filed
written statement and defendant No.5 filed application
under Section 151 of CPC and sought for dismissal of suit
as not maintainable. After hearing the arguments of the
parties, the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed
by the defendant No.5 under Section 151 of CPC on the
ground that the application is not maintainable. Being
aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.5 has filed this
petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:27376
CRP No. 480 of 2022
5. If the defendant has any grievance that the suit is
not maintainable and that the plaint has to be rejected,
the only remedy available to the defendants is to file an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of reserving
liberty to the petitioner-defendant to file an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the Trial Court, if he
so desires.
In view of disposal of petition, all pending I.As., if
any, do not survive for consideration and hence, the same
are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
