IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

CRP.NO.100078/2019

BETWEEN

ARJUN MAHADEVAPPA PUJARI

AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: KIRASUR, TQ: and DIST: BAGALKOTE.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.F.V.PATIL, ADV.)

AND

1 .

PARASAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA PUJARI @ NAIKAR

AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE and GOUINDI WORK,

R/O: KIRASUR, TQ and DIST: BAGALKOTE.

2 .

HANAMANT S/O RUDRAPPA PUJARI @ NAIKAR,

AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: KIRASUR, TQ and DIST: BAGALKOTE.

3 .

KONAVVA W/O HANAMANT HAMMANI

AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O: INAM YARAGOPPA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

4 .

ADIVEVVA W/O KONAPPA PUJARI

AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O: KIRASUR, TQ and DIST: BAGALKOTE,

NOW R/AT: NIDAGUNDI, TQ: BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA.

... RESPONDENTS

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.04.2019 IN REJECTING

I.A.NO.10 FILED BY THE PETITONER IN O.S.NO.89/2014 ON THE FILE

OF

THE

COURT

OF

THE

PRINCIPAL

SENIOR

CIVIL

JUDGE,

BAGALAKOTE AND KINDLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO.10 IN THE INTEREST

OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

The captioned civil revision petition is filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff

challenging

the

order

passed

on

I.A.No.10 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the

plaint and register criminal case against the person who

has alleged to have impersonated Adivevva w/o Konappa

Pujari.

2.

Facts leading to the civil revision petition are as

under:

Respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking to set

aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3/2011.

When the matter was posted for cross-examination of

P.W.2/plaintiff No.3, the present petitioner/defendant No.1

has filed an application to reject the plaint on the ground

that there is impersonation of plaintiff No.4. The learned

Judge having examined the averments made in the

affidavit filed in support I.A.No.10 and also objections, was

of the view that, question as to whether there is

3

impersonation of plaintiff No.4 cannot be adjudicated in an

application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. A plaint can

be rejected only if the averment of the plaintiff made in the

plaint attracts the ingredients of Order 7 Rule 11(a) to (d)

of CPC.

3.

It is well settled that to find out as to whether

other ingredients of Order 7 Rule 11 are attracted, the

court has to look into the allegation in the plaint, assume

that to be true for the time being and see whether the said

allegation in the plaint disclose a cause of action or not.

The claim made in the plaint are germane to consider

rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) to (d) of CPC.

All contentions urged in the present petition can at the

most assume the character of a defence set up by the

present petitioner. These material aspects cannot be

looked into and cannot be a relevant material to reject the

plaint by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

The defence that there is impersonation of plaintiff No.4 is

4

a matter of trial and thereby would not attract the

provisions of Order 7 Rule 1(a) to (d) of CPC. Whether the

petitioner/defendant No.1 is ultimately entitled to for the

relief sought is a matter of full-fledged trial. But that

cannot be a ground to reject the plaint by invoking the

provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC. If the plaint is

read in its entirety, I am of the view that the plaintiff has

disclosed cause of action. Whether he would succeed or not

is a matter of trial.

4.

In the present case on hand, the petitioner is

alleging that there is impersonation of plaintiff No.4. The

assertion is made by the petitioner and such a contention

has to be adjudicated at th