1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100019/2020

BETWEEN:

M/S SUVIDHA REALTORS AND

CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGNG DIRECTOR

SRI DINESH R MAHAJAN

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AND ITS DIRECTOR

TEJPRAKASH MAHAJAN

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.2

CENTRAL LIBRARY CAMPUS,

LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT.G.MEERABAI S.S.NIRANJAN, ADV.,)

AND:

1. THE HUBLI TALUKA AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE

MARKETING LTD., A-1, APMC

YARD, AMARGOL, HUBLI – 580025

BY ITS SECRETARY

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA

NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD

BANGALORE – 560052 …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SHARMILA. M. PATIL ADV.,)

FOR R1, AGA FOR R2)

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND

R

2

ORDER DATED 31.01.2020 AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE TRIAL

COURT WITH DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OFF THE SUIT ON MERITS, IN

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD

AND RESERVED ON 26.02.2021 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED

THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

In this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short referred to as `CPC’), the

petitioner is calling in question the legality and validity of the

order dated 31.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.51/2009 by the

learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, returning the

plaint of the plaintiff.

2.

The

revision

petitioner

is

the

plaintiff

in

O.S.No.51/2009 filed for seeking the relief of declaration that

resolution dated 24.11.2008 passed by defendant No.1 –

respondent No.1 and letter addressed by respondent No.1 to

the petitioner on 29.11.2008 terminating the contract of the

petitioner as bad in law, void and not binding on the petitioner

and also for a declaration that order passed by respondent

No.2 dated 19.03.2009 granting permission to respondent No.1

3

to call for fresh auction to sell the suit properties based on the

resolution dated 24.11.2008 and letter dated 20.11.2008 are

illegal, null and void, etc. The learned court below by its order

dated 31.01.2020 has returned the plaint to the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff – revision

petitioner is before this Court.

3.

The office has raised objections regarding the

maintainability of the revision petition under Section 115 of

CPC as against the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed

by the learned court below. Respondents who are the

defendants before the Court below have also taken up the

same contentions.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before

me that the order of the learned court below is one of returning

the plaint and therefore it is not a judgment or a decree and

consequently an appeal under Section 96 of CPC is not

maintainable. He further submitted that the impugned order

is not appealable under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1

of CPC as well. He therefore further contended that the

impugned order can be questioned by the petitioner only under

4

Section 115 of CPC and as such, the present revision petition

is maintainable. In support of his elaborate contentions, he

has placed reliance on the following decisions :

1.

W.P.No.113059/2014 – Dalawai Nagappa

since deceased by LRs. And ors. Vs. P.

Abdul Bari and others.

2.

(1977) 4 SCC 551 – Madhu Limaye vs. The

State of Maharashtra.

3.

(2003) 6 SCC 675 – Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram

Chander Rai and others.

4.

ILR 2018 Kar. 3785 – Nazir Ahamad and

ors.

Vs.

Anwarpashya

Sayyadmeera

Mujwar and ors.

5.

Le