SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 35943

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
SRI P NUNKESH GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
SMT SARASWATHAMMA – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:SIDDAPPA B M ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the trial Court, wherein the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected.

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition and separate possession, wherein the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Molakalmuru, was impleaded as defendant No.12. The defendant No.11 filed an application contending that the Sub- Registrar was arrayed as defendant No.12 without complying with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice under Section 80 of the CPC. However, the trial Court rejected this application.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and reviewing the plaint’s averments, it is noted that the plaintiffs seek a 1/7th share in the suit schedule property and have not sought any relief specifically against defendant No.12.

4. Section 80 of the CPC provides that no suit shall be instituted against the Government or a public officer in respect of any act purportedly done in their official capacity without first serving a two-month notice in writing, except as provided under sub-Section (2), which allows for the dispensing of such notice in cases of urgency.

5. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top