IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.14205 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. M.MADESH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/OF SEETHANAYAKANAHALLY, HARAGADDE POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O CHOODAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/OF NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, W/O D.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, 2ND CROSS, S.C.ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560009.
3. SRI. MOHANKUMAR S/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/OF BANNERGHUTTA ROAD, HULIMAVU, BENGALURU-560076.
4. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. N. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2; V/O DATED 02.08.2017 NOTICE TO R3 & R4 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 AND 2 AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD 15.03.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL IN R.A.NO.5034/2016 REJECTING I.A.NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-H FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.19 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL COURTS ACT, 1964 VIDE ANNX-K AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition by the defendant No.1 in a partition suit in O.S.No.1142/2006 who happened to be the respondent No.1 in R.A.No.5034/2016 lays a challenge to the order dated 15.03.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-K, whereby the learned III Additional District Judge, Anekal has rejected his application-I.A.No.III filed under Section 19 of Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (hereafter ‘Act’) read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking dismissal of the appeal. The contesting respondents/defendants having entered caveat through their counsel resist the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the impugned order cannot be faltered because:
(a) in a matter relating to rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, 1908, an appeal is provided since such an order falls within the definition of ‘Decree’ under Section 2(2) of CPC, 1908; accordingly appeal has been preferred by the respondent before the learned District Judge;
(b) where the subject matter of the appeal is valued at Rs.10,00,000/- or below, the appeal lies to the Court of District Judge; where the value of the subject matter of the appeal exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-, the appeal lies to this Court, under the provisions of Sec.19 of the Act as amended by Karnataka Act No.26/2007 w.e.f. 28.08.2007.
(c) it is the specific case of both the sides as emerging from the case papers that the subject matter of the suit is valued at Rs.3,00,000/- and accordingly appeal too is; that being the fact, the impugned order is unassailable; the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has arrived at a right decision.
In the above circumstances, writ petition is dismissed.
All other contentions of the parties are kept open.
Registry to send back both the Lower Court Records immediately to the learned District Judge concerned, who shall expeditiously dispose off the appeal, in accordance with law.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE UN