Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
Suresh G.M., S/o. B. Murigeppa – Appellant
Versus
H.J. Vijayakumara, S/o. H.S. Jayanna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC wherein it is contended that no cause of action for the suit. The Trial Court passed an order on I.A.No.1 in coming to the conclusion that on 13.03.2019, notice is given to the plaintiff by defendant and on 17.03.2019, reply is given to the defendant by the plaintiff. On 22.03.2019, V.G.Chandrashekar has also given his letter in which he has mentioned about the notice given by defendant asking about the incident. On 22.03.2019 apology letter is given by plaintiff. On 27.03.2019 the letter is given by defendant closing the complaint. Thereafter, in May-2019 plaintiff issued letter to the defendant stating that the defendant has taken unilateral decision about the issue. It is necessary to notice that in the letter dated 22.09.2019 given by V.G.Chandrashekar, he mentioned about the notice given by the defendant to him also and that gives an indication that there is no unilateral decision by the defendant. But, he has issued notice to even V.G.Chandrash
The court reasserted that, under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the plaint's averments should determine the presence of a cause of action, disregarding the defendants' defenses.
Termination of membership without due process violates principles of natural justice; trial essential for contested factual claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action for a suit and the scope of res judicata are crucial factors in determining the maintainability of a suit and the grounds ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of a partnership concern under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, renders the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, inappli....
The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the averments in the plaint to determine whether it discloses a cause of action and whether the suit is barred by limitation.
A cause of action for defamation requires publication of the alleged defamatory statements; mere issuance of a letter without public circulation does not suffice.
A defamation suit must specify defamatory statements and their damaging nature; vague allegations do not establish a valid cause of action, warranting dismissal only if no triable issues arise.
Mandatory service requirements under Order V Rule 17 must be strictly followed; failure to do so invalidates ex-parte proceedings.
The court affirmed that a plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses a cause of action and emphasized that authorized representatives can validly file affidavits supporting pl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
