Karnataka High Court
CRP/207/2025 of MR JAKOB Vs MRS VIMALA MARIYA on 30 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010054902025 NC: 2026:KHC:54563 CRP No. 207 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 207 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: MR. JAKOB S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA AGE ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 207 OF 2025 (IO)
BETWEEN:
MR. JAKOB
S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO. MARIYA NAGARA,
KONANURU HOBLI,
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK-573 102
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MRS.VIMALA MARIYA
W/O. KISHOR KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT ADIKEKERE HOSURU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211
2.
MRS. PREM KUMARI
W/O. MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NEAR MARIYA NAGARA,
KONANURU HOBLI,
ARAKALAHUDU TALUK-573 102
3.
MRS. MERI
W/O. MARTINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT SUGGATTA ROAD,
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
HUNASE MARANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-573 125
4.
MRS. JAYAMMA
W/O. BALAVENDARA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT KOODLURU VILLAGE,
HUNASURU TALUK,
MYSORE-571 105
5.
MRS. NAKSHTHRA MERY
W/O. ILIYAZ KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT GADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 118
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VARUN R.R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.APPANNAGOWDA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.HASAN S MAGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3
R2, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.II IN OS
NO.37/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HOLENARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE IA NO.II FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 in O.S.No. 37/2024 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, the petitioner/defendant No. 2 is before this Court.
2. Respondent No.1 herein, who is the plaintiff before the trial court, has filed the suit for declaration and to set aside the sale deed. In the said suit, I.A. No. II is filed by defendant No. 2 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper. The plaintiff has filed I.A. No. III under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint. The trial court, by order impugned held that the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed and hence need not pay the court fee on market value, and also permitted the plaintiff to amend the prayer.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that, in the same application, the trial court passed an order under Order VII Rule 11(d) and
HC-KAR
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. It is further submitted that the order passed by the trial court is not a reasoned order.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the trial Court has rightly passed an order and no interference is called for.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. This Court has perused the impugned order. The trial Court ought not to have passed a common order in both applications. It should have been an independent adjudication. Ultimately, the order lacks clarity. In those circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. The order dated 20.12.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.37/2024 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court.
HC-KAR
ii. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
iii. The trial Court shall consider the applications independently and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
v. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 *AK