Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 269 OF 2021 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SMT YASHODHA W/O SRI.RAMESH AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 7TH CROSS, RMG BUILDING ROAD, VIVEKANANDANAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. G M SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI CHANNAPPA Dig itally S/O LATE CHANNAPPA signed by AGED 64 YEARS SUMA Location:
HIGH COU RT 2. SRI.MAHADEVAIAH OF KARNATAKA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED 62 YEARS
3. SRI.JAYARAMA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED 60 YEARS
4. SRI.SHIVARAMAIAH S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAPURA MAAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBALI, RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 159.
5. SRI.LOKESH S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED 47 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 AND 5, ALL ARE R/AT ARALIMARADADODDI VILLAGE, MAAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 159.
6. SMT.M.NIRMALA W/O MAHAVIR CHAND, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.6/1, MALLESHWARAM SOUTH END ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020.
7. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERS OFFICE, MALAVALLI, H-948A (BENGALURU RING ROAD)
T.D.P.V. PLAZA, CHILURU GATE, KANAKAPURA TALUK-562 117.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI KUMAR E, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI.H.N.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI.RENUKARADHYA.R.D, HCGP FOR R7)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2021 PASSED ON I.A. IN OS.NO.261/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA, ALLOWING THE I.A. FIELD UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated
29.01.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, in O.S.No.261/2019 by which the application filed by defendant No.6 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC. was allowed and the plaint is rejected against defendant No.6 insofar as suit item No.10 is concerned.
2. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the revision petition is not maintainable in view of definition of a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC which includes rejection of plaint. He submits that the petitioner is bound to file an appeal under Section 96 of CPC and not revision petition as this Court is not empowered to reverse the decision of the trial Court disposing of the suit insofar as defendant No.6 is concerned.
3. On perusal of Section 2(2) of CPC, makes it clear that rejection of plaint also amount to a decree and since there can be more than one decree in a suit for partition, the order under question amounts to a decree and is appealable under Section 96 of CPC. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is just and proper and deserves acceptance.
The revision petition is therefore maintainable.
4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to convert this revision petition to a regular first appeal. The request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and is permitted to covert this revision petition to a regular first appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to make appropriate correction in the petition to bring it in line with the prescribed format of an appeal.
6. For statistical purpose, this petition is treated as closed.
