Sri Srujan Gowda G vs The Block Education Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 9221 Kant

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9221 Kant
Judgement Date : 4 December, 2023

Karnataka High Court

Sri Srujan Gowda G vs The Block Education Officer on 4 December, 2023

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                            -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC:43799
                                                         RFA No. 319 of 2023




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                         BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                     REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.319 OF 2023 (DEC)
            BETWEEN:
            SRI. SRUJAN GOWDA G,
            S/O GIRISH H S,
            AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
            REP BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
            SRI. GIRISH H S, S/O SRINIVAS,
            AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
            R/AT NO.84, 12TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
            SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI. JAGADEESHA P., ADVOCATE)
            AND:

            1.     THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
                   MASTI RANGA MANDIRA BUILDING,
                   SHANKAR MUTT ROAD,
                   SHANKARAPURAM (NEAR POLICE STATION)
                   BENGALURU - 560 004

            2.     THE HEAD MASTER,
Digitally          SISTER MOTHER TERESA SCHOOL,
signed by          NO.28, 5TH MAIN,
VANDANA S
                   OPP. JALAGERAMMA TEMPLE, SRINAGAR,
Location:          BENGALURU - 560 050.
HIGH
COURT OF           AND ALSO AT NO.661, 4TH CROSS,
KARNATAKA          50 FT. ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE,
                   RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
                   BENGALURU - 560 050
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
            (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1;
                NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/DT: 21/11/2023.)
                  THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF
            CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2022 PASSED
            IN OS NO.6551 / 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
            AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
            DECLARATION.
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:43799
                                              RFA No. 319 of 2023




     THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and

decree dated 03.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.6551/2021 by the VII

Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit

filed by the appellant - plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing

the respondents - defendants to correct the name of appellant -

plaintiff as 'Shripal Sanath G.' instead of 'Srujan Gowda G.' in the

records, study certificates, etc., of the respondents and for other

reliefs was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the appellant -

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit interalia contending that his

actual name was 'Shripal Sanath G' as per the Birth Certificate

dated 30.07.2009. However, in his Study Certificate issued by 2nd

defendant - school where he was studying in VIII standard, the

appellant's name is wrongly shown as 'Srujan Gowda G.' instead of

'Shripal Sanath G' and despite the appellant making a request in

NC: 2023:KHC:43799

this regard, the respondents did not take necessary steps to correct

the same in their records and as such, the appellant - plaintiff

instituted the aforesaid suit.

4. The respondents - defendants were placed ex-parte

and did not contest the suit. The appellant's father examined

himself as PW1 and exhibits P1 to P5 were marked and he was not

cross-examined by the defendants, who also did not adduce any

oral or documentary evidence, despite which the Trial Court

proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing

the suit, aggrieved by which the appellant - plaintiff is before this

Court by way of the present appeal.

5. A perusal of the material on record including the

impugned judgment and decree will indicate that despite the

unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged pleadings and

evidence of the appellant - plaintiff coupled with the fact that the

respondents - defendants had remained ex-parte and had not

contested the suit, the Trial Court committed a grave and serious

error of law and fact in dismissing the suit by improper and

erroneous appreciation of the material on record warranting

interference by this Court in the present appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC:43799

6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered

opinion that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the

Trial Court deserves to be set aside and suit of the plaintiff

deserves to be decreed as prayed for by him.

7. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.

(ii) Impugned judgment and decree dated decree

dated 03.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.6551/2021 by the VII

Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set

aside