JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 96 of CPC is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-43) on I.A.No.VII filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rules 11 (a), (b)

and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.2899/2023, whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 and rejected the plaint.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is a private limited company represented by its Managing Director. The plaintiff has entered into a lease deed dated 04.05.2009 with defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule industrial plot for 15 years commencing from 01.07.2009 on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. Further case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 has filed the arbitration case in A.C.No.115/2015 before defendant No.4/Arbritrator directing the plaintiff company to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also to pay a sum of Rs.12,10,104/- towards the arrears of rent with interest. The plaintiff also filed the counterclaim for Rs.1,85,00,000/- against defendant No.1 for the permanent structure put up by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4/Arbitrator passed an order dated 05.07.2016 by partly allowing arbitration case. Being aggrieved by the order of defendant No.4/Arbitrator passed in A.C.No.115/2015, defendant No.1 preferred an arbitration suit in A.S.No.164/2016 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said suit has been allowed vide judgment dated 21.01.2023 wherein the plaintiff has been directed to surrender the vacant possession of the lease hold premises to defendant No.1 within a period of three months and directed him to pay rent as agreed in the lease deed.

4. In the meantime, the plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S.No.2899/2023 seeking for the following releifs:

a. Permanent injunction against defendants’

interference in the possession of the suit schedule property, b. Declaration that the award dated 5-7-2016 passed by defendant No.4 Sole Arbitrator is not binding on the plaintiff, c. Declaration that the judgment and decree dated 21-1-2023 passed by the court of XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in A.S.No.164/2016 is not binding on the plaintiff, d. Declaration that the registered lease deed dated 4-5-2009 entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is not binding on the plaintiff, e. To stay the operation of the award dated 5-7-

2016 in AC No.115/2015 passed by 4th defendant , f. To stay the operation of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.164/2016 and other consequential reliefs.

5. On service of summons, defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement and also filed I.A.No.VII under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) of CPC. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, has allowed I.A.No.VII filed by defendant No.1 and rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff has entered into lease deed dated 04.05.2009 with defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule industrial plot for 15 years commencing from 01.07.2009 on the monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. Before the completion of lease period, defendant No.1 approached the Arbitrator. The trial Court without considering this aspect of this matter, has erred in rejecting the plaint. He further contended that the plaint has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC only based on the averments in the plaint. Without referring to the averments in the written statement, the trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed by defendant No.1. The same is contrary to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC