Karnataka High Court
Sri. C Narayana Reddy vs Sri. K N Manjunatha on 8 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5359
CRP No. 786 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.786 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C. NARAYANA REDDY
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
2. SMT. B. SUJATHA
W/O. C. NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.123/A,
5TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE
BENGALURU-560 054.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally (BY SRI VARUN P., ADVOCATE)
signed by H
K HEMA
AND:
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka 1. SRI K.N. MANJUNATHA
S/O K.R. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.G-1,
PLATINUM PARAMOUNT APARTMENT,
8TH CROSS, SHARADA NAGAR,
JALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU-560 013,
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5359
CRP No. 786 of 2023
SRI SYED PARVEEZ
S/O. SYED AYUB,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.48, 6TH CROSS, CHIKKABETTAHALI
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-97.
...RESPONDENT
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 20.11.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XXXV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-36) ON I.A. 3 IN O.S. NO.9073/2019 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A. 3 AND REJECT THE PLAINT IN
O.S. NO.9073/2019 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION, ON
GROUNDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2023 passed on
I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.9073/2019 by the XXXV Additional City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the defendant Nos.17
and 18 have filed this civil revision petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per the status before the trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:5359
3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the
suit schedule property and the defendants are trying to
illegally encroach upon the same and are trying to prevent
the peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property of
the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff filed O.S.No.9073/2019 with
the following prayer:-
"WHEREFORE the plaintiff above named most
humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased
to pass a judgment and decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants, their
supporters, rowdy elements, G.P.A. Holder or
any other person or persons claiming through or
under them from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property and restraining the defendants from
interfering in the construction work of a small
shed, digging Borewell therein and compound
wall carried on by the plaintiff over the Suit
Schedule Property, to grant cost of the suit and
to grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the
case in the interest of justice and equity."
NC: 2024:KHC:5359
4. Defendant Nos.17 and 18 filed I.A.No.3 under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that plaintiff has
subsequently, sold the property in their favour and that
the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit
schedule property and prayed for rejection of the plaint.
5. The trial Court on the ground that the averments
made in the plaint and the documents produced along with
the plaint alone can be looked into and defence cannot be
considered, rejected the interlocutory application.
Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition
is filed.
6. It is well settled principle of law that while
considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC, Court is required to consider the averments made in
the plaint and documents enclosed along with it. It cannot
rely upon the averments made in the written statement.
As the averments made in the plaint disclose the cause of
action, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application
filed by the defendant Nos.17 and 18.
NC: 2024:KHC:5359
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision
petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VMB
