Merely Because Plaintiff Admits Ownership Of Defendants, It Is Not A Ground To Reject Plaint: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court remarked that merely because the plaintiff admits the ownership of defendants, it is not a ground to reject the plaint.
The Court was dealing with a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for setting aside the order of the Sessions Court in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by which it rejected the plaint.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Natarajan observed, “The trial Court has not specifically mentioned on what the provision, it has rejected the plaint. Merely, the plaintiff admits the ownership of the defendants, that itself is not a ground to reject the plaint and the Court cannot pass an order on merits of the case without giving the reasons after the evidence.”
The Bench added that merely the plaintiff failed to get any order in the interlocutory application or an objector application, it is not a ground to reject the plaint.
Advocate Badri Vishal appeared for the appellant while Senior Advocate Udaya Holla appeared for the respondent.
Brief Facts -
The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant before the Trial Court. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of a property. The said property belonged to grandfather of the defendant who passed away in 1964 by leaving behind his wife and defendant’s father, who succeeded the estate. During his lifetime, a portion of the property was allotted to Regional Transport Authority (RTO) and it was in arrears of rent to the defendant’s father. A proceeding was initiated for eviction and RTO was evicted. After evicting RTO, the Rent Control Authority allotted the property to M/s Cottage Industries Exposition (P) Ltd.
The defendant’s father entered into a lease in the year 1979 with the said company and even at that time, his father made no efforts to evict the plaintiff and at the company’s request, he erected a compound wall on the property which was a portion of the leased out property, and the plaintiff was enjoying the property. The plaintiff also constructed an office to accommodate the mechanic and was paying the electricity and telephone bills. The defendant’s father was much aware of the plaintiff’s activities and never attempted to claim the property. In 2016, the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff and threatened with dire consequences to vacate the property. The plaintiff approached the police but it refused to interfere in civil dispute and hence, the suit was filed. The Trial Court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint and therefore, the plaintiff approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts said, “On perusal of the entire judgments relied on by both the learned counsels, it is well settled that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without due process of law if he is owner of the property and eviction cannot be also against the true owner, at the instance of the persons in unlawful possession. But, here, in this case, though issues were framed by the trial Court and posted the matter for evidence, at that stage, the respondent-defendant No.2 filed application for rejecting the plaint. Even the trial Court while passing the impugned order has not stated as to whether the suit is barred by law or whether no cause of action arose for filing the present suit. But, the trial Court has is plainly stated and allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint.”
The Court further emphasised that once the issues were framed, the Trial Court could have allowed the appellant-plaintiff to lead evidence and permit the respondent-defendant to cross examine the witnesses and could have passed the judgment.
“That apart, he has produced variously electricity bills for having possession over the suit schedule B property. Such being the case, without going to the trial, the plaint cannot be rejected, at the threshold. … This Court cannot give any findings and it would prejudice case of the appellant-plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff shall be allowed to prove his case in the trial. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is required to be set aside”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for conducting the trial and dispose of the matter within 9 months.
Cause Title- M/s Canara Auto Garage v. L.E. Ramachandra
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Badri Vishal
Respondent: Senior Advocate Udaya Holla and Advocate R.B. Anepanavar.
