Karnataka High Court
Smt. Roopa C.S vs Sri. Nanjappa on 28 November, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43032
RFA No. 1262 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1262 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ROOPA C.S.
D/O SONNAPPA
W/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 110.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NANJAPPA
S/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
Digitally
signed by 2. SRI.S.RANGARAJU
VANDANA S S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAIAH
Location: AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. CHITTARANJAN @ CHIKKARANJAN
S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4. SRI SHASHIDAR
S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5. SRI UDAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43032
RFA No. 1262 of 2016
RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT KUNTE BEEDI
CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.V. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
NOTICE TO R-3 D/W VIDE ORDER DATED 07.08.2019;
R-2 AND R-4 ARE SERVED ;
NOTICE TO R-5 IS H/S VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2019)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 11.02.2014 PASSED ON I.A NO.IV IN O.S NO.439/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING
THE IA NO.IV FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO REJECT THE PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
11.02.2014 passed in O.S.No.439/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the application - I.A.No.IV filed by
respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and
(d) r/w Section 151 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court, which
rejected the plaint and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the
appellant - plaintiff.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
NC: 2023:KHC:43032
3. A perusal of the material on record including the
impugned order will indicate that in the aforesaid suit for
declaration, injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit
schedule immovable property filed by the appellant - plaintiff
against respondents - defendants, in addition to filing the written
statement, the defendants also filed an application - I.A.No.IV
under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the
plaint. The said application was not opposed by learned counsel
for the appellant, who did not file objections nor did he remain
present when the matter was taken up, as a result of which, the
Trial Court proceeded to hear respondent No.1 and his counsel
and allowed the application and rejected the plaint, aggrieved by
which, the appellant is before this Court by way of the present
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to
bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause,
it was not possible for the counsel for the plaintiff to appear before
the Trial Court to file objections to I.A.No.IV and contest the same
in accordance with law. It is submitted that if one more opportunity
is provided in favour of the appellant - plaintiff by setting aside the
NC: 2023:KHC:43032
impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh, the appellant would file objections to
I.A.No.IV and same can be disposed of in accordance with law.
5. Though the said submission is vehemently opposed by
learned counsel for respondent No.1, a perusal of the impugned
order will indicate that undisputedly, the appellant had not filed
objections to I.A.No.IV nor was the counsel present when the
matter was taken up and I.A.No.IV was disposed of in the absence
of the appellant and his counsel before the Trial Court. Under
these circumstances, in order to provide one more opportunity to
the appellant to contest I.A.No.IV on merits and by adopting a
justice oriented approach, without expressing any opinion on the
merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and
appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter
back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.IV afresh in
accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable
opportunity to both parties.
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.
NC: 2023:KHC:43032
(ii) The impugned order dated 11.02.2014 passed in
O.S.No.439/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Devanahalli, is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, the impugned judgment and
decree is also hereby set aside.
(iv) Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration of I.A.No.IV afresh in accordance with law.
(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to
file objections to I.A.No.IV and contest the same in
accordance with law.
(vi) Parties undertake to appear before the Trial
Court without awaiting further notice on 19.12.2023.
(vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter
are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
(viii) The Trial Court is directed to consider and
dispose of I.A.No.IV in accordance with law within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SV
