IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.513 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Worker’s House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., No.10, Millers Tank Bund Road, Jasma bhavan, Bangalore – 560 052. Represented by N. Lakshman, Special Officer.
(By Sri. Pradeep Singh, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. B.S. Virupakshappa S/o. K.N. Shivanna Aged about 69 years R/at No.151, New No.304/105/1/151 Siddashree 1 Kadhi Board Layout, Jakkur, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 560 064.
2. Sri. Thejas S/o. B. Ravi Gowda, Aged about 27 years.
… Petitioner 3. Sri. Akshata D/o. B. Ravi Gowda Aged about 22 years.
4. Sri. B. Ravi Gowda S/o. Late Byre Gowda Aged about 62 years 5. Smt. Yashodamma W/o. Late Byre Gowda Aged about 86 years.
Respondent No.(2), (3) (4), (5) are R/at No.326, 15th Cross, Opp.to Sadashivnagar Club Bangalore. 560 025.
… Respondents (By Sri. Basavaraju H.N. for Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate for R1;
Sri. Malanna K. Advocate for R2 & R3 – Absent; Sri. Suresh S. Lokre, Adv.for R4 & R5 – Absent) **** This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dt.11.7.2017 passed on I.A.NO.3 in O.S.NO.6041/2016 on the file of the LX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting the I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The Revision Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the Order dated 11/07/2017, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court be permitted to frame the issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue and the Trial Court be directed to decide the aforesaid issue as a preliminary issue.
4. The aforesaid submission is not fairly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the issue with regard to maintainability of the suit can be decided without recording the evidence, it is directed that the Trial Court in view of the case of the parties shall frame an issue with regard to maintainability of the suit, viz., on account of non- service of Notice under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 before filing of the suit and shall decide the same by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
Accordingly, the present Revision Petition is disposed of.
BMV* Sd/- JUDGE