IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA, BANGALoRfi7§=° DATED THIS THE 30" DAY 09 MAY é6§8fTTxT,* BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T§;V.SHYLENDR§ KUMAR;
CIVIL REVISION 9ET:T:ofi»No,142}2oQ8_7
BETWEEN
(BY SR1 BER;
J.~_
SRI S B SRINIVASR”REDDYj{
sio LATE H*TfBIAREpnY * “‘
AGED ABOUT 56gYERRS_ _,_ ‘
#24, 3RD_fa! MAIN; SRIKANTBSHWARA TEMPLE
STREET, vENKATAEURA,*afLQRE~560 034
ALSO AT x0. 29a1;,GoKuLAM MAIN ROAD
VISVBSHWARRPURAMy “q
MYsoREw562Vo02_*.j»_. …
PETITIONER
RAv:sHANKAR,ADv. FOR M/S LEX
NEXUS)
H ANb !T
‘MRS’fi¥s_§AksHAYINI W/O H R C RAO
‘AGED_ABOUT 49 YEARS, occ: HOUSE WIFE
RfAE NOfl536, 11TH caoss
i3TH’MA1N, MICO LAYOUT, BTM II STAGE
;BRNGALORE–56O O76
‘*s§: RAVINDRA BABU s/0 LATE s MOHAN
; AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
T occ: MARKETING MAAGER
RfAT N0.30, GOVINDR NILRYA, 1ST CROSS
RAJARAM MORAN ROYA EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 027
‘ ‘-«’vISvESRwARAPURAM, MYSORE-562 002
°.§f,RRSfAMRAxAMMA @ CROWDAMMA
~I’*vENKATAPURA, BANGALORE*560 034
‘uALSO AT NO.298l, SORULAM MAIN ROAD
“; é3 MRS SARASWATRAMMA wjo VENKATARAMANA REDDY
:3 THE PRESIDENT & THE SECRETARY ¢~.g,j?, .
VASAVINAGAR, OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION ” ]«T
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER KARNATARA’,f’
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, HAVING ITS . , 1
OFFICE AT VAEERARALLI VILLAGE; HEAR TULE u:J
RESORT, OFF: BANNERGHATTA;RQAD, JISAxI.~f_
HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK &.ALSO AT NO,?60 1
g’LORE ‘.M” _ V “.Am_m_
(1) MR R R c RAO S/O A_RAJA RAO – .-7
AGES ABOUT 56 YEARS 5 _,” . v
R/AT # 24, 3RD *E*;MA:RA} _ _»_
SRIKANTESEWARA TEMPLE STREET*4;»
vENKATA9URA;,BARGALORE–56Q 03$’
ALSO AT §O;g981; GOKULAM MAIN ROAD
VISVESRWARARERAMI,AySORE+5S2 002
(11) _.MR 3 S RRISRNA MURTHY
S/O LATE 3 SURBA’RAO —
AGES ABOUT 6? ¥Efi3S=”
R/AT=#*24;,3Rg.+O3*MAIN
SRIKANTESRwARA,TRaRLE STREET
VERKATARURA,FSANSALORE-560 034
ALSO AT NO;2SSI, GOKULAM MAIN ROAO
*AWfO LATE H T BIA REDDY
AGED-ABOUT 87 YEARS
RXAT # 24, 3RD ‘9’ MAIN
SRIRANTESHWARA TEMPLE STREET
“E VISVESHWARAPURAM, MYSORE~562 002
AGES ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT ff 24, 3RD ‘D’ MAIN
SRIKANTESHWRRA TEMPLE STREET
VENKATAPURA, BANGALORE-560 O34
ALSO AT NO.298l, OOKULAM MAIN ROAD »«AR_ fi”,
VISVESHWARRPURAM, MYSORE-562 002
MS SUMANA D/O MR 5 8 SRINIvASA.RfiDD%} “V],=
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS I
R/AT # 24, 3RD ‘D’ MAIN I ,
SRIKANTESHWARA TEMRLR_sTREET= I
VENKATARURA, BANGALORE¥560 O34V_’v
ALSO AT NO.298l, GOKuLAM*MAIN*ROAD: :
VISVESHWARAPURAM, MYSQRE~562 002=-“Hi
MS SOWBHAGYA D/O MR s_g SRiNIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, f ; “‘ *Jv~
R/AT # 24,’3RD ?D*”MA:N,=_ ,
SRIKANTSSRAARA.TSMRAE STREET »
VENKATAPURR;gBAHGALQRE#§60 034
ALSO A: NQ;293l, GOKULAM MAIN ROAD
VISVESHWARAEDRAM; Mf80RE¥562 002
MS RRDMAKUMARI,DfO”MR’S B SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED~ADOUT_28}YEARS»”
R/AT #,24, 3RD,*Dfi~MAIN
SRIKANTESRWARA TEMPLE STREET
v3NKATARuRRa,BANGALORE–56O 034
‘ALSO AT NO.2981, GOKULAM MAIN ROAD
‘~VISVRSAwARARURAM, MYSORE~562 002
VMR”MARIKARTA4RDDDY
»S/O,MRjS’S SRINIVASA REDDY
AGSD ABOUT 25 YEARS
RfAT*# 24, 3RD ‘D’ MAIN
x.x°SRIKANTESHW%RA TEMPLE STREET
“,VENKATAPURA, BANGALORE-560 O34
ALSO AT NO.298l, GOKULAM MAIN ROAD
A VISVESHWARAPURAM, MYSORE–562 002
1710
MRS KAUSALYA REDDY W/O ANANDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RXAT # 24, 3RD ‘D’ MAIN
SRIKfiNTESHW%RA TEMPLE STREET
Vflludogie the application filed by the
V defendant’ suit praying for rejection of
‘ the piaint application under order VII Rule
ll(d} of the CPC.
plaintiffs’ who have themselves pleaded
THIS CRP IS FILED 11/3 115 OF .THEofc§e;*=*
AGAINST sew: ORDER Ema 30.1.08 pAssEQ*AIafIA
No.4 IN os NO. 53/07 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL =_
JUDGE, (JR.DN}, JMFC., ANEKAL, pIsMIssINGzI5E,_j
IA No.4 FILED U10 7 RULE 11 la} & (dy”oE_T$e_*
cec. : = =– i»A. I ‘
THIS CRP COMING on “Roe ‘AmfiI$SIoNi;THIs
BAY, THE COURT enssap THE EoLLowINs:’= *
section 115 of éfie deg is ditected against the
order on IA IV in OS
No.53/2007 pegeing «fix fine file zof the fiddl.
Civil JudgeajJrI on )z§’JMFC, Anekal.
_thie””«.i_;I_1pugned order, the learned
The defendant sought to contend that
l”respect¢of,the suit schedule property only to
la limitee extent had sought for relief to a
lV.hland is not belonging to the plaintiffs and
‘”. the_§laintiffs being not successful in their
x”rieffiort to persuade such other owners also to
h’.uijoin the suit, obviously, the plaint does not
the CPC and therefore, the application was tot»
be dismissed. _ _
6. The learned judge also toundithatethe l
defendants had given some cause of aetioh eat’
favour of the plaintiff to institute the suit.
Aggrieved by this orderg the nresent retision
petition is filed. it 2 l l
?. Sri E;hg*Ra§ishankar{.leernad counsel
appearing on fiéhelf §f.£hé petitioner would
very vehémeg;1§§fu§g§f thatl the suit was a
frivolouslr and séveeatious one; Khat the
plaint_iffsl”‘who.hadA’=dis’closed their interest in
very large eitent of land and admittedly such
plaintiff could seek an order. Irrespective
l,of the reasons given by the learned Judge of
Vlvdismissingathe application is very proper and
‘l”h therefore; I am not inclined to interfere with
extent sought for, atleast to some extent in
respect of which they could reasonably assert
the existence of 2a cause of action then tour
that limited extent alone the suitwlfillfxl.
survive for consideration. _W__’ l l
10. While this is suffi.cientf
the application under Order VIlw Rule iljai ofl
the CPC, it is not necessarfi to go into other
questions raised as there are ho material for
the purpose of disposal of anfilication under
Order VII Rulé §# 0% the @?é:iiThe reasoning
equally apsiiesete ififii argued; urged ix: the
application lundeia §rce;_;y%1 Rule llia) to
1l(d} of 3E0 to the lifiited extent that the
the trial ceurt, the conclusion reached for
the matter in Civil Revision PetitiQn~ §fid5J ;
accordingly dismissed.