Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision petition filed by the 3rd defendant in OS 181/2004 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Mysore. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent for a declaration and permanent injunction, claiming to be the successful bidder of a property (site No. 136/A on D Devaraj Urs Road, Mysore) auctioned by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) under notification dated 23.10.2000 for a bid amount of Rs. 27,22,000/-. The plaintiff alleged that MUDA, without canceling the allotment in his favor, re-auctioned the property on 19.2.2003. The petitioner herein is a subsequent purchaser from the 3rd respondent, who had purchased the property in the re-auction. The petitioner filed IA 8 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not maintainable without a statutory notice under Section 64 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act. The trial court rejected the application, observing that since the suit had already been registered, the application for rejection of the plaint could not be maintained and had become infructuous. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this revision under Section 115 CPC. The High Court heard the matter and noted that the trial court's observation was incorrect, as mere registration of the suit does not amount to admission of the suit, and the validity or maintainability of the suit can be considered as a preliminary issue. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the trial court for reconsideration according to law. The court also noted that MUDA had filed a similar application for rejection of the plaint, which was pending consideration.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Mere Registration of Suit - The trial court erred in holding that an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC becomes infructuous merely because the suit has been registered. Registration does not amount to admission of the suit, and the validity or maintainability of the suit can be considered as a preliminary issue. (Paras 4) B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Interference with Interlocutory Order - The High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting IA 8 and remitted the matter for reconsideration, as the trial court's observation that the application was infructuous was incorrect. (Paras 4) C) Property Law - Auction Sale - Statutory Notice - Section 64 Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act - The petitioner contended that the suit was not maintainable without a statutory notice under Section 64 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act. The High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the application for rejection of plaint according to law. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was correct in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit had already been registered.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 7.10.2013, and remitted the matter to the trial court for reconsideration according to law.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- Section 64 Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act
- Rejection of plaint
- Maintainability of suit
- Statutory notice
