IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 73 OF 2021 (IO)

BETWEEN:

MYSURU DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES LIMITED, JANATHA BAZAR BUILDING, ASHOOKA ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH T.B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed M/S. NIMISHAMBA ENTERPRISES by SHARADAVANI BY ITS PARTNER B Location: High Court of 1. SMT.SEETHA LAKSHMANA Karnataka

2. SMT.USHA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT URS ROAD, 3RD CROSS, DEVARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 001.

…RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.985/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, REJECTING I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF THE CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Sandesh T. B., learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed on the file of VII Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in O.S.No.985/2019 dated 08.12.2020 whereby application filed under Order VII Rule

11(d) of CPC vide I.A.No.4 came to be rejected.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.985/2019 with the following prayer:

“Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, subordinates, power of attorney holders, servants or any person/s acting on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever unless and until she is evicted from the due process of law and not otherwise and to grant court costs and such other relief/s as the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

3.2. Plaintiff contended that he being in lawful possession in respect of the shop premises bearing No.6 and 7 situated in the ground floor, southern block of Bidadi, Mysuru palace, Mysuru, claimed the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that he has taken the said shop on the lease basis from Mysuru palace Board, Mysuru.

3.3. He is running business pertaining to KSIC Products and tramcar for the age old people and also foreigners who visit the palace and monthly rent is Rs.31,000/-.

3.4. When there was interference with regard to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, suit for permanent injunction came to be filed.

4. Defendant entered appearance and contended that suit is not maintainable in view of Section 70 and

120(5) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.

5. He also filed an application in that regard. Said application on contest, came to be rejected.

6. Validity of the same is called in question in this revision petition on following grounds:

(cid:1) The learned VII Additional First Civil Judge has committed an error of law in passing the impugned order by holding that there is no reason to keep the case pending anymore and where the statutory provision under Section 125 of KCS Act not complied and trail court has given reason that court has dispensed the prior notice is perverse and unsustainable.

(cid:1) That the under section 70 and 118 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, Civil Court has bared to institute the suit, that the jurisdiction of suit as to be instituted before the Registrar of Co- operative society however without considering the facts and circumstances dismiss the IA No.4 is on sustainable and against the law.

(cid:1) That the petitioner society ha