JUDGMENT

H P Sandesh, J. - This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 15.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC in O.S.No.2366/2018 on the file of the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru allowing the said I.A.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant herein, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court had filed the suit against the respondents/defendants seeking for the following reliefs :-

(a) to declare that the walls provided to the two schedule immovable properties are common walls and such walls cannot be demolished by defendant No.3 illegally and unauthorisedly;

(b) for a decree of declaration declaring that the construction undertaken by defendant No.3 in the property which is the subject matter of notices under Sections 321(1), 321(2) and 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act pertaining to property No.109, 3rd Cross, Shantaveeraiah Lane, Bengaluru-560 002 is illegal, unlawful, without appropriate and proper permission granted;

(c) to issue a decree of perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.3 from putting up any illegal and unlawful construction on the 'C' Schedule Property; and

(d) for a direction directing the defendants Corporation to demolish the illegal, unauthorized construction and protect the property of the plaintiff described in Schedule 'B' property.

3. Respondent No.3, who is defendant No.3 before the Trial Court, had filed the Interlocutory Application, which is numbered as I.A.No.3 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint for want of cause of action. In support of the said application, an affidavit was sworn to stating that for want of cause of action, the plaint be rejected and also the relief which was sought by the plaintiff in the suit lies under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the said Act'). It is also averred that the civil suit is not maintainable and the relief claimed by the plaintiff is barred by the said Act. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing objections, wherein he has contended that the said interlocutory application has been filed only with an intention to harass the plaintiff and common wall question is involved in the suit. Defendant No.3 is making construction in violation of the approved plan and his construction is illegal and hence, sought for rejection of the said application. The Trial Court, after hearing the plaintiff as well as the defendants, allowed the application by coming to the conclusion that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is also barred by the said Act and rejected the plaint for want of cause of action against the defendants.

4. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, in the present appeal has challenged the allowing of the application in I.A.No.3 contending that the Trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made the owners of the suit schedule properties as parties to the proceedings and that no authority will give permission for illegal construction to the tenant, which is incorrect. What is culled out in the course of the order passed by the Trial Court is that the recitals in the written statement which is impermissible in law.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal has contended that the Trial Court ought to have noticed that it has to read only the plaint averments and not written statement nor the application and its averments. The Trial Court ought to have noticed that the reliefs sought for in the present proceedings are not within the ambit of statutory provisions of the said Act and therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the plaint. The Trial Court has also erroneously come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has shown the cause of action as 31.01.2018, which is only the date of disposal of the Writ Petit