IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.549 OF 2014 (MON) BETWEEN:
SRI VISHWA CARIAPPA B. S. SON OF B.K.S. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.42/8, “KAMALA NILAYA”, 1ST CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR 1ST MAIN ROAD, ATTIGUPPE, BENGALURU-560 040.
(BY SRI S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI B. S. RAMACHANDRA SON OF LATE SANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT WEST SIDE HOUSER, ANNACHWKOOR ROAD, KASABA HOBLI, PIRIYAPATTANA TOWN, ... APPELLANT PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.
(BY SRI R. KIRAN, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 30.10.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3976 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER-7, RULE-11, READ WITH SECTION 20 OF CPC.
***** THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2013, passed by the trial court allowing the application in I.A.No.4, filed by the defendant-applicant, under Order-VII, read with Section-20 of C.P.C., the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.
2. The primary contention of the appellant- plaintiff is that assuming that the Trial Court was of the view that, it does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the same should have been returned for presentation before the appropriate civil court. That the trial court on the contrary rejected the suit by allowing the application in I.A.4.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the well-settled position of law, the trial court had to return the plaint for re-presentation before the appropriate civil court.
4. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that, based on the well-settled position of law, the order of the trial court allowing the application and rejecting the suit for want of territorial jurisdiction is erroneous. Accordingly, the order dated 30.10.2013, passed by the XX Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.3976 of 2010, is modified. The plaint is directed to be returned to the plaintiff for re-presentation before the appropriate civil court having territorial jurisdiction. The appeal is disposed off accordingly Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ