Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, P.M. Gopi, filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against an order dated 5.9.2013 passed by the XXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No.4715/2012. The trial court had dismissed I.A.No.6 filed by the petitioner under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit filed by respondents 1 to 6. The petitioner claimed to be the purchaser of the suit schedule property from one Gururaj, who allegedly received the property as a gift from his father Narasaiah. Respondents 1 to 6 claimed to be the wife and children of late Narasaiah and filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioner argued that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC because the respondents had earlier filed Execution Petition No.411/2011 and obtained findings that should have been raised in the suit. The High Court examined the order and noted that the execution petition was for a different relief and the suit was not barred. The court found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 2 Rule 2 - Bar of Suit - The court considered whether the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC on the ground that the plaintiffs had omitted to sue for a part of the claim in earlier execution proceedings. The court held that the execution petition was for a different relief and the suit was not barred. (Paras 1-3)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 - Revision - The revision petition was filed against the order dismissing I.A.No.6 under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The court found no error in the trial court's order and dismissed the revision. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by respondents 1 to 6 is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC based on findings in Execution Petition No.411/2011.
Final Decision
The revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 5.9.2013 passed by the XXXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No.4715/2012 dismissing I.A.No.6 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Order 2 Rule 2 CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- Res Judicata
- Execution Proceedings
- Suit for Declaration and Injunction
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (06) 15
Sri P.M. Siddamallappa for Sri Jeevan Kumar B.S. for petitioner; Sri Siddappa for respondents 1 to 6
B.M. Venkatalakshmamma and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition against dismissal of application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC in a suit for declaration and injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought dismissal of the suit filed by respondents 1 to 6 on the ground that it was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the suit was barred because respondents had earlier filed Execution Petition No.411/2011 and obtained findings that should have been raised in the suit.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed I.A.No.6 filed under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC on 5.9.2013.
Issues
Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC based on findings in Execution Petition No.411/2011.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as the respondents had earlier filed Execution Petition No.411/2011 and obtained findings that should have been raised in the suit.
Respondents contended that the execution petition was for a different relief and the suit is not barred.
Ratio Decidendi
The suit is not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC because the earlier execution petition was for a different relief and the findings therein do not operate as res judicata for the suit.
Judgment Excerpts
This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in O.S.No.4715/2012 by the XXXVII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated 5.9.2013 on I.A.No.6 filed under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC filed by the defendant-petitioner to dismiss the suit filed by respondents 1 to 6 herein on the basis of findings given by the said Court in Execution Petition No.411/2011.
Petitioner is stated to be the purchaser of the suit schedule property from his vendor by name Gururaj.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed I.A.No.6 under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC in O.S.No.4715/2012 before the XXXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking dismissal of the suit. The trial court dismissed the application on 5.9.2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 115, Order 2 Rule 2
