The court clarified that under Order VII Rule 11, only the plaint's averments are relevant, not the defense, and that RERA's jurisdictional provisions do not apply retroactively to suits filed before its enactment.

CAV JUDGMENT

The R.F.A.No.2457/2024 is filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.10 filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.8454/2016 by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. The M.F.A.No.5580/2017 is filed challenging the order dated 22.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.8454/2016 by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff/appellant before the Trial Court is that the appellant is a builder of repute, entered into a joint development agreement dated 19.08.2003 with the owner of the property bearing Bommanahalli Town Municipal khatha No.364, Sy.No.28 of Jaraganahalli village, Kankapura Road, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South Talulk, Ward No.186, measuring totally 3 acres 18 guntas which is morefully described in the schedule property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that on 21.07.2003, the appellant obtained sanction of a building plan from BDA for construction of multi storied residential flats/apartments, comprising of several building/blocks which are interconnected. The appellant developed and constructed 4 blocks of residential units under the name and style M/s. H M Tambourine and postponed construction of the remaining blocks to a future date. The appellant in order to construct in the area kept apart in the front of the schedule property for future development as provided in the brochure and earmarked for future development in the schedule property obtained a modified sanction plan from the relevant authority in terms with the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act on 24.06.2016. The appellant accordingly commenced construction in November 2016. In December 2016, when substantial progress was achieved by the appellant, the defendants abruptly began interfering with the construction of the new residential apartments and made illegal threats claiming that they would prevent the future occupiers of the new residential apartments. Though the appellant appraised the defendants that as per law and factually, they have no right to interfere and obstruction, continued the obstruction. Hence, constrained to file a suit for the relief of bare injunction. It is also contended that temporary injunction was granted and the same is questioned before this Court and the same was confirmed by this Court vide order 22.04.2017 and vacated the interim order of status quo granted on 08.08.2017 and order of this Court passed in W.P.No.20615/2017 are consistent with each other and permitted to put up the construction. It is contend that in the meanwhile, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was filed for rejection of the plaint and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court hence, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in not noticing that when this Court as well as the Apex Court time and again held that ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts have to be strictly construed and that in the instant case, the authority under Real Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 2016 has no jurisdiction or competence to go into the issues involved in the suit. It is further vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in relying upon Section 79 of the Act to hold that the suit is not maintainable ignoring the fact that Section 79 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Courts only in respect of matters over which the authority constituted under the Act has taken action or intends to take action pursuant to the power conferred by or under the Act. In the instant case, the authority has no power, competence or jurisdiction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the construction of residential apartments in the area earmarked for future development in the schedule property. The cou