IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.8181/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
C. MANGAYARKARASI W/O. C. SUNDRAM, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, SOLE TRUSTEE OF SUNDARAM TRUST NO.334/21, 14TH CROSS, SADHASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: AMIT A. MANDGI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. C. MANGAI D/O. S. CHOCKALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.B 23, EMBASSY PALACE, NO.1, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052, REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER S. CHOCKALINGAM, S/O. C. SUNDARAM, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O. B 23, EMBASY PALACE, NO.1 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.
2. SIVA SUBRAMANIAN S/O. C.S. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3. S. ARUNDATHI D/O. C.S. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.24, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.
4. C. SUNDARAM S/O. S. CHOCKALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO. 8C GOLF LINK APARTMENTS, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.
5. M/S. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MILLERS ROAD BRANCH, BANGALORE – 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER.
6. M/S. AXIS BANK NO.9, ESQUIRE CENTRE, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: ADITYA SONDHI FOR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. B.V. NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2016 AT ANNEX-A PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE ON I.A.6 IN O.S.1492/12 THEREBY REJECTING THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition assails order dated 20/07/2016 passed on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). That application was filed by defendants in the suit, seeking rejection of the plaint. By the impugned order, said application has been rejected. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they have an alternative remedy of filing a civil revision petition under Section 115 of CPC.
2. In that view of the matter, I do not find it appropriate to exercise discretion and entertain the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioners herein to avail of the statutory remedy under the code, if so advised. I.A.No.I/2017 is accordingly, allowed.
3. Office to return certified copies of the impugned order and other documents annexed to the writ petition to petitioner’s counsel forthwith, subject to filing of copies of the same for the purpose of record.
4. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.II/2017 would not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs