IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

R.F.A.No.1395/2017

BETWEEN :

1.

THE KARNATAKA STATE EDUCATION

FEDERATION, K.S.E.F. BUILDING

LALBAGH FORT ROAD,

OPP : KIMS HOSPITAL, KALASIPALYAM

BENGALURU - 560002

BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT

2.

KSEF COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

NORTHERN EXTENSION, TUMKUR

BY ITS PRINCIPAL & GOVERNING

COUNCIL MEMBER.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI V.LAKSHMAIAH, ADV.)

AND :

1 .

SRI B.V.OMPRAKASH

S/O LATE V.VENKATESHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

R/O No.692, 10^TH A MAIN,

4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR

BANGALORE - 560011

2 .

SMT.SAVITHRAMMA

W/O LATE V.VENKATESHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

R/O No.692, 10^TH A MAIN,

- 2 -

4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR

BANGALORE - 560011

3 .

THE COMMISSIONER

TUMKUR CITY CORPORATION

TUMKUR

4 .

THE REVENUE OFFICER

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

TUMKUR CITY - 571104

5 .

THE DY. COMMISSIONER

TUMKUR DISTRICT

TUMKUR – 572104

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.V.OMPRAKASH, RESPONDENT No.1/PARTY – IN –

PERSON/CAVEATOR.)

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH

ORDER 41 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2017

PASSED IN O.S.NO.02/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE

IA NO.VII, IA NO.IX, IA NO.X AND IA NO.XIV FILED FOR

REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the order dated

05.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.2/2015 on the file of the

Principal District Judge, Tumakuru (‘Trial Court’ for

short) on I.A. Nos.VII, IX, X and XIV, whereby the plaint

has been rejected.

- 3 -

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3.

The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.2/2015 before the

Trial Court. The reliefs claimed in the said suit is

extracted hereunder:-

i)

To pass a judgment and decree in favour

of

the

plaintiffs

and

against

the

defendant Nos.1 and 2.

ii)

Restrain the defendant Nos.3 and 5 not

to interfere with the peaceful possession

by granting interim order in favour of the

plaintiffs and against the defendant

Nos.3 and 5 till further direction or

disposal of the suit.

iii)

May be pleased to direct the defendant

No.4 in passing interim order of stay to

the proceedings/claims/appeal pending

in respect of the suit schedule property

until further orders or disposal of the

suit.

iv)

Cost of the suit amount.

- 4 -

v)

Grant such other reliefs that this Hon’ble

Court deems fit and proper in the

circumstances of the suit.

4.

In the said suit proceedings, I.A.Nos.VII, IX,

X and XIV were filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2

seeking for the rejection of the plaint and to dismiss the

suit as not maintainable in law. The Trial Court on

appreciation of the material on record allowed the said

applications

rejecting

the

plaint,

against

which

W.P.No.17206/2017 was filed by the plaintiffs which

came to be dismissed holding that the impugned order

is deemed to be a decree and as such, writ petition is

not maintainable, reserving liberty to the plaintiffs to

challenge the impugned order in accordance with law.

Hence, the present appeal.

5.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants

submitted that the Trial Court failed to notice that the

defendant Nos.1 and 2 had not even filed written

statement to disclose their defence. They have directly

- 5 -

filed I.As. seeking rejection of plaint which is not

sustainable in law. The plaintiffs had filed application

under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of

the plaint inasmuch as the reliefs claimed in the plaint

i.e., a perpetual injunction against defendant Nos.1 and

2 and injunction against defendant No.3 not to enforce

notices and injunction against defendant No.5 not to

proceed with the appeals. The T