Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Lakshmipathy vs Karnataka Education Society (Reg) on 13 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6073
CRP No. 45 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.45 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B.K. LAKSHMIPATHY
S/O LATE KITTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.230, 8TH CROSS
1ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI YATHIRAJ S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REG)
Digitally NO.92, 2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
signed by H 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
K HEMA BENGALURU-560 079
Location: REPTD., BY ITS SECRETARY
High Court DR. M. MANJUNATH.
of Karnataka
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC.,
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2023 DISMISSING
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6073
CRP No. 45 of 2024
THE I.A. UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (a) & (d) READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF CPC., IN O.S. NO.25344/2023, ON THE FILE
OF THE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE &
MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, THEREBY DISMISSING THE
APPLICATION REFUSING TO REJECT THE PLAINT, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of
the suit schedule property and the same was allotted to
him by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
Before the execution of the sale deed by the BDA,
respondent No.1 entered into an agreement of sale
wherein it agreed to purchase the suit schedule property
from the petitioner upon BDA executing the sale deed.
The Agreement was executed way back in the year 2010.
However, as there was a delay in having the sale deed
executed by BDA in favour of the petitioner herein, the
first respondent filed O.S.No.25344/2023 with the
following prayers:-
"WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully prays that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
NC: 2024:KHC:6073
(a) Pass Judgment and decree of specific
performance; directing the 2nd defendant to
execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff as
per the terms of the registered agreement for sale
dated 04/11/2010; by receiving the balance sale
consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs
only); in respect of the schedule property within
the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court; and put the
plaintiff in physical possession of the schedule
property.
Or in the alternate
In the event grant of relief for specific
performance, as above, becomes impossible or
impractical, direct the 2nd defendant to refund a
sum of Rs.1,65,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore sixty
five Lakhs only) (1,55,00,000/- sale consideration
+ Rs.10,00,000/- litigation charges) to the Plaintiff
with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from
04/11/2010 till realization of the entire amount;
(b) Grant such other relief or reliefs that this
Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and
circumstance of the case; including the costs of the
suit."
2. In the course of the proceedings before the trial
Court, the petitioner herein who is the defendant No.2
NC: 2024:KHC:6073
therein, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a)
and (d) of CPC and prayed for rejection of the plaint on
the ground that the contract entered into between the
petitioner and respondent No.1 is a contingent contract
which becomes executable only upon execution of the sale
deed by BDA in favour of respondent No.1. The said event
not having taken place, respondent No.1 is not entitled to
maintain a suit. The trial Court has rejected the
contention of the petitioner and has dismissed the
application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil
revision petition is filed.
3. Admittedly, the contract between the respondent
No.1 and petitioner is a contingent contract which can be
executed only upon execution of the sale deed in favour of
the petitioner by the BDA. The contract also contains a
clause that in the event, BDA does not execute the sale
deed, respondent No.1 will be entitled to receive back
certain amounts paid as stipulated in the agreement.
Admittedly, the BDA has not yet executed the sale deed in
NC: 2024:KHC:6073
respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the
petitioner herein. Hence, respondent No.1 has filed
O.S.No.25344/2023 with a prayer for specific performance
of the contract or in the alternative for payment of the
consideration paid by him.
4. As per the agreed terms of the contract, if the sale
deed is executed, the respondent No.1 is entitled to sue
for specific performance and will be entitled to a decree
upon proving that defendant has violated such terms of
the contract and situation warrants there should be a
specific performance of contract or in the alternative,
respondent No.1 is also entitled to sue the petitioner for
re-payment of the consideration amount as per the terms
of the contract and will be entitled to it upon establishing
certain facts and as per the agreement.
5. For the aforementioned reasons, I do no see any
infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court.
Respondent No.1 is entitled to maintain a suit against the
NC: 2024:KHC:6073
defendants. For the said reasons, the civil revision
petition is hereby dismissed.
6. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VMB
