IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT C.R.P. No.401/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. A VENKATESA PERUMAL S/O LATE ALARGARSAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NOW AT NO.76, 2ND CROSS SAI ENCLAVE BESIDE MS RAMAIAH CITY ABOVE APOLLO PHARMACY J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE BANGALORE-560 078. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR B.G., ADV.] AND:
SMT. K RAJESHWARI W/O K.C. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O NO.13, 1ST MAIN ROAD NATARAJA LAYOUT 7TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR BANGALORE-560 078. ... RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS.NO.1795/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (C) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The defendant in O.S.No.1795/2015 on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 11.07.2019 by which the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC is rejected.
2. The petitioner is defendant and respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.1795/2015, wherein the plaintiff has sought relief of judgment and decree directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises in question to the plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant filed application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC stating that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to file the present petition. It is also further stated that there is no cause of action stated in the plaint and there is no pleading to that effect, therefore, the suit is not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff opposed the said application by filing objections contending that the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. Earlier the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.4127/2014 for ejectment, the said suit was compromised and the defendant had failed to comply with the terms of the compromise. Thereafter, terminating the tenancy once again the present suit is filed for eviction. The trial Court vide impugned order rejected the application filed under 7 Rule 11(c) of CPC. Aggrieved by the same the defendant is before this Court in this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and perused the material on record.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view, that the impugned order would not suffer either from material irregularity or jurisdictional error. Copy of the plaint is produced along with the petition, which would disclose that the plaintiff has incorporated the cause of action column by filing amendment application, which was allowed on 11.07.2019. The said order is not challenged and has become final. Cause of action column would state that the cause of action arose on 04.02.2015, the date on which the plaintiff issued legal notice to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession. It is not open now for the petitioner/defendant to contend that there is no pleading with regard to cause of action and there is no cause of action to file the suit. The application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of CPC to be considered based on the plaint averments. The averments made in the written statement would have no relevance at the time of considering the application. From the suit averments it could be seen that the plaintiff has made out cause of action to file the suit.
5. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
6. In view of the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, I.A.I/2019 filed for stay does not survive for consideration, the application stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms