Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sidramayya and Roopa, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2020 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bidar, in O.S.No.76/2015. The trial court had allowed I.A.No.V filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 (the District Forest Officer and Range Forest Officer) under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-compliance with the statutory requirement under Section 114(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The plaintiffs claimed to be absolute owners in possession of suit land bearing Sy.No.120/1 measuring 3 acres 14 guntas and Sy.No.120/3 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas, situated in Kolar-K village, Bidar. They sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction against the State of Karnataka and forest officials. The defendants contended that the suit land was classified as forest land and that the plaintiffs had not issued the mandatory notice under Section 114(A) of the Act before filing the suit. The trial court accepted this contention and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court examined the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) and Section 114(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act. The court noted that Section 114(A) requires a notice of at least two months before instituting a suit against the government or its officers for acts done in official capacity. However, the court held that non-compliance with such notice requirement does not make the suit non-maintainable at the threshold; it is a procedural requirement that can be waived or cured. The court emphasized that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) is only permissible when the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by any law. Since the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and the notice requirement was not an absolute bar, the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the suit to its original file for trial on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Suit for declaration and injunction against forest authorities - Plaintiffs claimed ownership of suit land - Defendants sought rejection of plaint for non-compliance of Section 114(A) of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 - Trial Court allowed application and dismissed suit - Held that non-issuance of notice under Section 114(A) is not a ground for rejection of plaint at threshold as it does not bar the maintainability of the suit but only requires notice before institution - Appeal allowed, suit restored (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs without issuing notice under Section 114(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 07.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.76/2015 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bidar, is set aside. The suit is restored to its original file. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Section 114(A) of Karnataka Forest Act
- 1963
- Notice requirement
- Maintainability of suit
- Threshold bar
