IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.307 OF 2019 BETWEEN 1. SRI RAMAPPA S/O SRI KADIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SMT. LAKSHMI NARASAMMA W/O SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KONDAMARAPALLI VILLAGE CHELURU HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.
3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI GANGULAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PRESENT RESIDING AT BANDAMINDA PALLI PETAM MANDALAM THAMALAPALLI TALUK CHITHOOR DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH.
4. SRI NARASIMHAPPA S/O SRI RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT RAMASAPALLI VILLAGE CHELURU HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.
5. SRI THALARI NARAYANAPPA S/O SRI MANGAMMA, VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS KURUVALAPALLI VILLAGE CHELURU HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.
6. SRI VENKATRONA S/O GIDAPPAGARI VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BODALAVARIPALLI CHELURU HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.A.DEVANAND, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE BAJJAPPA @ KURUBARA BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. SRI RAMAPPA S/O LATE BAJJAPPA @ KURUBARA BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
3. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE BAJJAPPA @ KURUBARA BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT KURUBAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE CHELURU HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.
4. SRI KADIREPPA S/O SRI YAMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PRESENT RESIDING AT RAMASAPALLI VILLAGE CHELURU HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.
... RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.143/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., CHIKKABALLAPURA, REJECTING IA.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Defendant Nos.1 to 7 in O.S.No.143/2018 on the file of the I Additional, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapur are before this Court assailing the order dated 06.03.2019 on I.A.No.2, by which the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC., is rejected.
2. The petitioners are the defendants and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.143/2018. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the following reliefs;
(a) To declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners, in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
(b) Grant Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their assigness, contractors, or anybody claiming through them from trespassing upon the schedule property or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their family members over the suit property and or otherwise interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
3. On appearance, defendants filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC., praying to reject the plaint contending that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. Further it is stated that the suit schedule description is not proper and would not depict the correct description of the property to identify the same.
4. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court in this revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit property ought to have been Sy.No.41 and not Sy.No.82. He further submits that the plaint would not disclose the cause of action to file the suit and if at all the plaintiffs have any cause of action it is in respect of Sy.No.41 and not in respect of Sy.No.82. It is his further submission that the defendants contend that suit schedule description is not proper and the description given by the plaintiffs is entirely different from the plaint documents. It is further submitted that when the description given by the plaintiffs in respect of property cannot be identified the suit would not be maintainable. Thus, he prays to allow the petition.
7. It is settled position of law that while considering the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC., the same shall be considered with reference to the plaint averments and nothing else. The defence or the written statement averments would have no relevance while considering such application. In that background, the plaint which is produced along with petition is perused, the same would disclose cause of action to file the suit. The prayer is for declaration with regard to title and for permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khatha No.41, Sy.No.82 measuring an extent of 10 acre 32 guntas out of this 10 acre only situated at Kotampalli Village, Chelur Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. The plaint averments at para No.3 is also in respect of Khatha No.41 and Sy.No.82. The cause of action at para No.10 would indicate that cause of action arose on 02.06.2018, when the defendants and their followers have entered into the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs. At this stage, the defence or written statement averments with regard to description of the property cannot be looked into. The defence or written statement averments raises an issue for determination by the Court. The trial Court has rightly observed that the Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses cause of action or not. The trial Court is of the opinion on reading the entire plaint that the plaintiffs have made out cause of action for filing the suit. I find no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial Court. The impugned order is neither perverse nor erroneous to interfere with.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ssb