The Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to hear matters involving sick industries under SICA, necessitating the dismissal of suits pending before it upon the filing of proceedings with BIFR, per Sections 22, 26, and 32.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Amit Mandgi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G.K.Shivaprakash, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. This revision petition is filed by the defendant No.2 challenging the validity of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in O.S No.594/2012 on the file of XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8) whereby I.A. No.3 filed by the second defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be dismissed by Order dated 30.04.2014.

3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 viz. C.N.Geetha and C.N. Shashishekar, being the daughter and son of Smt. Rajamma/ respondent No.1 together filed the aforementioned suit for specific enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 20.12.1973 in respect of the following property hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

“All that piece and parcel of property bearing Municipal No.1 and 2, Hosakere Road and part of Sy.No.10/1, situated at Bhogenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore, out of which a portion including septic tank, measuring East to West 165+260/2 ft. and North to South: 108+205/2 ft. and total measuring 32,865 sq.feet, and bounded on the:

East by: Binny Work people stores and Municipal No.1 & 2

West by: B.M.W and other L.C.H.S. Ltd., land

North by: Vacant land retained by B.M.

South by: Road formed by B.M.W and OLLHS Ltd.”

4. Smt.Rajamma/first plaintiff died and her legal representatives viz., plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 continued the suit.

5. In the plaint, plaintiffs contended that first defendant being the absolute owner of the suit property, agreed to sell portion of the suit property by entering into an agreement on 20.12.1973 in favour of Sri K.Nanjundaiah, who is the husband of first plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3.

6. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that a sum of Rs.39,000/- was paid by Sri K.Nanjundaih and possession of the suit property was delivered to K.Nanjundaiah by the first defendant.

7. The plaintiffs further contended that Nanjundaiah was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property until his death. Thereafter, it is his legal representatives viz., Rajamma, C.N.Geetha and C.N.Shashishekar (plaintiffs) were in possession of the suit property.

8. It is further contented by the plaintiffs that Nanjundaiah was an illiterate person and did not had the worldly knowledge regarding obtaining the sale deed in respect of the suit property.

9. It is further contented by the plaintiffs that when the matter stood thus, in the month of November 2011, plaintiffs noticed that second defendant is trying to trespass into the suit property and tried to demolish the compound on one side of the suit property. Immediately plaintiffs approached the jurisdictional police. But police advised them to approach the Civil Court.

10. A legal notice was caused on 22.12.2011 to the first defendant calling upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed.

11. It is also submitted by the plaintiffs that reply notice was issued by the first defendant with false material facts.

12. Plaintiffs further contended that they were in lawful possession of the suit property and cause of action to file the suit arose in the month of November 2011 and on 22.12.2011 when the legal notice was caused.

13. Plaintiffs prayed in the suit as under:

“WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff:-

(a) To pass a Judgment and