IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1521 OF 2025 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

MRS. HEMA H.M, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O MARIYAPPA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HANAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT NO.3, 1ST CROSS, OPP. TO PIPELINE ROAD PREMANAGARA, LAGGERE BANGALORE - 560 058.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B YASHASWINI MAHILA SOUHARDA Location: High CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., Court of Karnataka HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.107, PIPELINE MAIN ROAD, OFFICERS COLONY, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 054.

REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. KUMBHI NARASIMHAIAH.

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.137/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, ALLOWING THE I.A.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.137/2024, is directed against the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28), whereby the application-I.A.No.4 filed by the sole defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the C.P.C., which rejected the plaint and dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the impugned order and decree, the appellant-plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

2. As stated supra, the sole respondent having been served with notice of the appeal, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the suit.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the only point that arises for my consideration in the present appeal is, as to whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing I.A.No.4 and thereby rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically contended that she is neither borrower nor a guarantor and the appellant was only a tenant, who was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In this context, it is pertinent to extract the plaint averment, which reads as under:

"2.1 The Plaintiff submit that the Plaintiff are the tenant under one Mr.Eshwar Rao Pawar.L S/o Late.Lakshman Rab Pawar who is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Site No.3 Assessment No.47, Khata No.388, situated at Laggere Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Dasarahalli, CMC Ward No.31 now within the revenue administrative jurisdiction of Ward No.73, measuring East to West 43 Feet and North to South 15 Feet, which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and schedule premises bearing Site No.3, First Floor, Northern portion, Assessment No.47. Khata No.388, situated at Laggere Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Dasarahalli, CMC Ward No.31 now within the revenue administrative jurisdiction of Ward No.73, measuring East to West 43 Feet and North to South 15 Feet. 3. The Plaintiff submits that, the Plaintiff is an women and she was inducted by the landlord in the year 2013 by virtue of the lease agreement and under the said agreement, the Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as lease amount to the landlord by way of cash and the lease period was determined for a period of 10 years. The Plaintiff submits that after the lease period is completed, the landlord above named Mr.Eshwar Rao Pawar.L had requested the Plaintiff to renew the lease agreement and continue the lease for further period of two years and hence, after the negotiations, is completed, the landlord had executed lease Agreement dated 26.06.2023 in f