1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.5109 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1 . S.M. VENGOPAL, 55 YRS,

S/O LATE MUNIRANGAPPA,

2 . SMT. H.L. HEMALATHA, 44 YRS,

W/O S.M. VENUGOPAL,

BOTH ARE R/O HOUSE NO.3/1,

TATA SILK FARM,

3^RD MAIN ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,

BENGALURU – 560 003.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. SIDDARAJU, 55 YEARS,

S/O SIDDALINGAPPA,

R/AT KORA VILLAGE AND HOBLI,

TUMAKURU TALUK &

DISTRICT - 572 128

…RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 09.12.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 FILED

U/O VII RULE 11(d) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE VIDE

ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN

O.S.NO.672/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL

AND JMFC AT TUMKUR.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

Petitioners being the defendants in an injunctive suit in

O.S.No.672/2020 are knocking at the doors of the Writ Court

for assailing the order dated 09.12.2020, a copy whereof is at

Annexure-A whereby the learned V Additional Civil Judge,

Tumakuru, having rejected their application filed under Order

VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, 1908 has refused to non-suit the

plaintiffs.

2.

Having

heard

the

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners and having perused the petition papers, this Court

declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as,

Section 9 of CPC covers all suits civil in nature unless the

contrary is provided by law; in order to oust the jurisdiction of

civil courts one has to establish a cogent case vide Dhulabai

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78.

3.

The reliance placed by learned counsel for the

petitioners on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this

Court

in

PATEL

DODDAKEMPEGOWDA.

Vs.

CHIKKEEREGOWDA, in ILR 1986 KAR 2404 does not come to

his aid inasmuch as the case therein related to the removal of

3

the boundaries fixed by the revenue officials in exercise of

power under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act,1964; going by the pleadings of the Respondent-plaintiff,

the case treated by the learned Co-ordinate Judge appears to

be miles away from the one that is being tried on the floor of

the Court below.

In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed off

requesting the learned Judge of the Court below to try &

dispose off the suit expeditiously, all contentions of the

parties having been kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS