IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 34 OF 2023 (IO)

BETWEEN:

IRINE D'SOUZA

W/O JOHN D'SOUZA,

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

R/AT GREEN GARDEN,

AMTHADY VILLAGE, MODANKAUP POST,

BANTWAL TALUK,

D.K.DISTRICT - 574 219.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed 1. MURALIDHAR PAI. G

by

SHARADAVANI S/O LATE G. VITTAL PAI,

B

AGED 57 YEARS,

Location: High

Court of R/O D.NO.11-10-1059,

Karnataka

G H PAI COMPOUND,

GOWRI MUTT STREET,

MANGALURU TALUK,

D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001.

2. G. SHALINI PAI

W/O LAXMI NARAYANA BHAT,

AGED 65 YEARS,

R/AT D NO.11-10-989/23,

SUMUKHA HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, T T RAOD, OPP.GANESH PRASAD APARTMENT, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001.

3. THE SCDCC BANK REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, HAVING ITS OFFICE/BRANCH AT JANATHA BAZAR, HAMPANKATTA, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2023, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN OS.NO.37/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL.D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. FOR REJECTION OF PLIANT.

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.K.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Rakshith Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. Respondent/defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) to reject the plaint.

3. On contest, Trial Court passed an order which reads as under:

“IA No.IV filed by the defendant No.3 is hereby partly allowed.

Hereby directed the plaintiff to delete the prayer mentioned in VI (d) of the plaint which is against the defendant No.3.”

4. For ready reference provision of law as is found under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is culled out hereunder:

“11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

1[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]

2[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:]

3[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]”

5. Learned Trial Judge can reject the plaint on any one of the conditions enumerated supra.

6. But the Court has no power to strike of or direct the party to delete a prayer by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

7. In this regard, learned counsel for the revision petitioner gainfully places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sejal Glass Limited v. Navilan Merchants Private Limited reported in (2018)

11 SCC 780.

8. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:

“8. We are afraid that this is a misreading of the Madras High Court judgment. It was only on the peculiar facts of that