Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
SMT CHUDAMANI – Appellant
Versus
SMT MEERABAI MANOJKUMAR – Respondent
CRP 100/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100 OF 2021 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHUDAMANI,
S/O NANDA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/A NO.9/3, 11TH CROSS ROAD,
PIPE LINE, CHOLURPALYA,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.B.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. MEERABAI MANOJKUMAR,
W/O.SRI MANOJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/A NO. 9/3, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH CROSS ROAD, PIPELINE,
CHOLURPALYA, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
2.
SMT. MANJULA,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT
KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/A NO.9/3, 1ST FLOOR,
11TH CROSS ROAD, PIPELINE,
CHOLURPALYA, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
2
3.
SMT. BHARATHI MANJUNATH,
W/O SRI. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/A NO.9/3, 11TH CROSS ROAD,
PIPELINE, CHOLURPALYA, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
4.
SRI. MANJUNATH R.,
S/O SRI. RAMA SANJEEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/A NO.9/1, GROUND FLOOR,
11TH CROSS ROAD, PIPELINE, CHOLURPALYA,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2021
PASSED ON IA IN OS No.25968/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-No.29) MAY HALL
UNIT AT BANGALORE ALLOWING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER
VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) CPC FOR REJECTION OF THE PLAINT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This revision petition is challenging the order passed
by the trail Court under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, by which, the plaint is
rejected.
2.
In view of the fact that the rejection of plaint
amounts to decree, the revision petition filed under Section
3
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable.
Hence,
the
office-objections
raised
regarding
the
maintainability is upheld.
3.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed
as not maintainable.
It is however open for the petitioner to file an appeal
in accordance with law. If an appeal is filed, the time
consumed in pursuing the revision petition shall be
enlarged for calculating the limitation.
Office is directed to return the certified copy of the
impugned order after collecting an authenticated copy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/NM
