MainSearch AdvancedSearch Disclaimer

Cites10docs[ViewAll]
TheRailwayCompanies(EmergencyProvisions)Act,1951
Article226inTheConstitutionOfIndia1949
TheInstituteOfChartered...vsM/S.PriceWaterhouse&Anron11July,1997
TheInsurance(Amendment)Act,2002
Article227inTheConstitutionOfIndia1949

MobileView

StartDownload
ConvertAnyFiletoaPDF.GettheFreeFromDoctoPdfApp!

GetthisdocumentinPDF Printitonafile/printer Viewtheactualjudgmentfromcourt

KarnatakaHighCourt

UserQueries

Puravankara Projects Limited vs Mr P Dayananda Pai S/O Late P ... on 6

November,2012

civilrevision

Author:N.Ananda

civilrevisionpetition

rejectionofplaint
cpcsection
sec115

nawab
orderviirule11cpc
orderviirule11(a)cpc

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKARNATAKAATBANGALORE

section115codeofcivilprocedure
section115cpc

DATEDTHISTHE06THDAYOFNOVEMBER2012

cpcsection115filter:order1rule
10(2)ofcpcorder22rule4(4)cpc

BEFORE

civilprocedurecode115
cpc11

THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICEN.ANANDA

rule11
section96cpc

C.R.P.No.276/2012

section96civilprocedurecode
orderviirule11

BETWEEN:

viirule11

PuravankaraProjectsLimited

ordervii

ACompanyincorporatedunderthe

article226and227

ProvisionsoftheCompaniesAct,1956
Havingitsregisteredofficeat
130/1,UlsoorRoad,
Bangalore560042.
Rep.byitsAuthorisedSignatory
&VicePresidentLandProcurement
Mr.H.G.Nagananda....Petitioner
(BySriD.N.NanjundaReddy,SeniorAdvocateforM/s.Anup
S.ShahLawFirm,Advocates)
AND:
1.Mr.P.DayanandaPai
S/olateP.NarasimhaPai
Agedabout64Years
HavingitsOfficeat:
10/1,LaxminarayanaComplex,
GroundFloor,PalaceRoad,
Bangalore560001.

R/atMadhuvana,Kodigehalli
BellaryRoad,Bangalore560092.
2.ManipalUniversity
ASocietyRegisteredunderthe
KarnatakaSocietiesRegistrationAct
HavingitsRegisteredOfficeat
2

Madhuvanagar,
Manipal576104.
andlocalofficeat
No.14,CenturyTowers
6thFloor,OldAirportRoad,
Kodihalli,HALIIStage,
Bangalore560088.
FormerlyknownasManipalAcademy
ofHigherEducation
Rep.byitsPresident/Secretary....Respondents
(BySriBadriVishal,AdvocateforR1;SriH.S.Dwarakanath,
AdvocateforC/R2)
Thisrevisionpetitionisfiledundersection115CPC,
againsttheorderdated21.03.2012,passedinO.S.No.4788/2011,
onthefileofXVAdditionalCityCivil&SessionsJudge,Bangalore
City,onIANo.3andetc.
Thisrevisionpetitionhavingbeenheardandreservedfor
orderon18.10.2012,comingonforpronouncementthisday,the
courtmadethefollowing:
ORDER

The petitioner in CRP No.276/2012 and also in MFA No.3509/2012 is the plaintiff in
O.S.No.4788/2011.Respondents1&2aredefendants1&2inO.S.No.4788/2011.
Forthesakeofconvenience,partieswouldbereferredtobytheirranksbeforethetrialcourt.
2.Theplaintiffhassoughtforfollowingreliefs:

(a)declarethatthe:
(a.i)JointDevelopmentAgreementdated
05.03.2005,(AnnexureC);
(a.ii)PowerofAttorneyexecutedbyFirst
DefendantinfavourofPlaintiffdated
29.03.2005,(AnnexureE);

(a.iii) Power of Attorney executed by Second Defendantin favour of Plaintiff dated 29.03.2005
(AnnexureD)
Continuetobevalidandsubstitutingandbindingonthedefendants.
(b) Direct the Specific Performance of the Joint Development Agreement dated 05.03.2005
(AnnexureC) as confirmed in the Declaratory affidavit (AnnexureF) executed by the Second
Defendantdated22.03.2005
(c)AlternativelyandwithoutprejudiceintheeventofthisHon'bleCourtcomingtoaconclusion
that the relief of specific performance of Joint Development Agreement dated 05.03.2005 as
confirmedintheDeclaratoryAffidavit executed by Second Defendant dated 22.03.2005 cannot
begranted,then(c.i)ThisHon'bleCourtmaybepleasedtodirecttheDefendantseitherjointlyor
severallytomakepaymentofasumofRs.175,00,00,000/asdamagestothePlaintiffasandby
wayofdamagesforthebreachoftheJointDevelopmentAgreementdated05.03.2005.
(d)Grant a permanent injunction against the Defendants, either jointly or severally their men,
agents,henchmen, licensees, attorneys or anyone claiming through or under them from in any
manner alienating, transferring, encumbering, dealing with, leasing, licensing or changing the
characteroftheSuitSchedulePropertyoranypartthereof
(e)Pass an order of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants either jointly or severally
fromactinginanymannercontrarytothe(e.i)JointDevelopmentAgreementdated05.03.2005,
(AnnexureC)
(e.ii) Power of Attorney executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Plaintiff dated
29.03.2005,(AnnexureE)
(e.iii) Power of Attorney executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Plaintiff dated
29.03.2005(AnnexureD).
(f)Forcostofthesuitandsuchotherandfurtherrelief/sasarejustintheinterestof
justiceandequity.
1.TheIIdefendantfiledanapplicationunderOrderVIIRule11CPCforrejectionofplaintasit
relates to II defendant. The IIdefendant has contended that there was no privity of contract
between plaintiff and IIdefendant. The II defendant has cancelled agreement of sale dated
29.11.2004 entered into between defendants 1 & 2. The IIdefendant has also revoked deed of
powerofattorneyexecutedinfavourofIdefendant.Thesuitisbarredbytime.Thelearnedtrial
Judgeacceptedtheapplication(IANo.3)andrejectedtheplaintagainstIIdefendant.
2. The plaintiff had also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction to restrain
defendants1&2fromalienating,transferringandcreatingthirdpartyinterestoversuitschedule
properties. The learned trial Judge has held that in view of rejection of plaint against II
defendant,question of granting temporary injunction against II defendant does not arise. The
learned trial Judge has held that IIdefendant has sold the property in favour of third parties,
thereforetherecannotbeanorderoftemporaryinjunctionagainstIIdefendant.Thelearnedtrial
Judge has held that Idefendant is not the titleholder of plaint 'B' schedule properties. The
agreementofsaledated29.11.2004enteredintobetweendefendants1&2hasbeencancelledby
IIdefendant. There is no privity of contract between defendant No.2 and plaintiff. The I
defendant who was the agreement holder in respect of 'B' schedule properties could not have
entered into agreement of sale with plaintiff. The learned trial Judge has also held that suit is
barredbytime.Therefore,plaintiffhasfiledMFANo.3509/2012.
3.Attheoutset,itisnecessarytostatethatdecisioninCRPNo.276/2012hasdirect bearing on

MFANo.3509/2012.UnlesstheorderofrejectionofplaintagainstIIdefendantissetaside,MFA
No.3509/2012cannotbeconsidered.
4. The plaintiff being aggrieved by partial rejection of plaint had filed W.P.No.10552/2012. On
04.07.2012,thiscourtpassedtheorderreadingashereunder:
"Inviewofthememofiledinthecourttoday,petitionerisgrantedlibertytoconvert
thiswritpetitionintoC.R.P.
2.Petitionisdisposedofaccordingly."
Therefore,W.P.No.10552/2012wasconvertedintoCivilRevisionPetitionNo.276/2012.
5.WhenCivilRevisionPetitionwastakenupforconsideration,learnedcounselfor respondents
raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Civil Revision Petition, inter alia
contending if decision before trial court had gone in favour of petitioner, that would not have
finallydisposedoffthesuit.
6. I have heard Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel for petitioner and Sri
H.S.Dwarakanath,learnedcounselforrespondentNo.2onthequestionofmaintainabilityofCivil
RevisionPetition.
7. Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel for petitioner has made following
submissions:
I. In view of liberty granted by this court in W.P.No.10552/2012, Civil Revision
Petitionismaintainable.
II. In view of decisions of the Supreme Court, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659 (in the
caseofShivShaktiCoop.
HousingSociety,NagpurVs.SwarajDevelopersandOthers)and(2002)2SCC2(in
thecaseofPremBakhsi&OthersVs.DharamDev&Others),CivilRevisionPetitionis
maintainable.
10.SriH.S.Dwarakanath,learnedcounselforIIrespondenthasmadefollowingsubmissions:I.
InviewofthejudgmentoftheSupremeCourt,reportedin(2003)6SCC659(ShivShaktiCoop.
HousingSociety,NagpurVs.SwarajDevelopersandOthers),provisotosection115CPCisabar
tomaintainCivilRevisionPetitionundersection115CPCiftheorderoftrialcourthadgonein
favour of petitioner, that would not have given finality to the suit. Therefore, civil revision
petitionisnotmaintainable.
II. The order passed by this court in W.P.No.10552/2012 dated 04.07.2012 is not binding on
respondents. The order was made on 04.07.2012. In fact, memo for withdrawal was filed by
petitioneron17.07.2012.Therefore,memowasnotavailablebeforethecourt.Thepetitioneron
his volition had sought permission to convert writ petition into civil revision petition. III. The
order of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is appealable under section 96 CPC.
Therefore,petitionercannotmaintaineithercivilrevisionpetitionundersection115CPCorwrit
petitionunderarticle226or227oftheConstitutionofIndia.
11.Inadecisionreportedin(2003)6SCC659(inthecaseofShivShaktiCoop.HousingSociety,
NagpurVs.SwarajDevelopersandOthers),theSupremeCourtonconsiderationoftheprovisions
of section 115 CPC before its amendment by Act No.46/1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 and
afteritsamendmentwitheffectfrom01.07.2002hasheld:
"32.AplainreadingofSection115asitstandsmakesitclearthatthestressisonthe
question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have

given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is 'yes' then the revision is
maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is 'no' then the revision is not
maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is of interim in nature or does not
finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislative intent is
crystalclear.Thoseorders,whichareinteriminnature,cannotbethesubjectmatter
ofrevisionunderSection115.ThereismarkeddistinctioninlanguageofSection97(3)
oftheOldAmendmentActandSection32(2)(i)oftheAmendmentAct.Whileinthe
former, there was clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending
before the amendment came into force. Such an intent is significantly absent in
Section32(2)(i).Theamendmentrelatestoprocedures.Nopersonhasavestedright
in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner
prescribed.Ifbyastatutorychangethemodeofprocedureisalteredthepartiesareto
proceedaccordingtothealteredmode,without exception, unless there is a different
stipulation."
In the case on hand, if the order of trial court had gone in favour of petitioner, that would not
have finally disposed of the suit. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that civil revision
petitionisnotmaintainable.
12.SriD.N.NanjundaReddy,learnedseniorcounselforpetitionerhasreliedonadecisionofthe
SupremeCourt,reportedin(2002)2SCC2(inthecaseofPremBakhsi&OthersVs.DharamDev
& Others), to contend that civil revision petition is maintainable as the impugned order had
occasionedinfailureofjusticeandcausedirreparablelosstopetitioner.
13.AftergoingthroughthedecisioninPremBakhsi'scase,Ifindthatdecisionwasrenderedwith
reference to section 115 CPC before it was amended by Act No.46/1999 with effect from
01.07.2002.Therefore,submissionoflearnedseniorcounselforpetitionercannotbeaccepted.
14.SriD.N.NanjundaReddy,learnedseniorcounselforpetitionerhascontendedthatthiscourt
has ordered for conversion of writ petition into civil revision petition. Therefore, order of this
courtisbindingonpartiesandrespondentscannotreagitatethequestionofmaintainability.
15.Attheoutset,itisnecessarytostatethaton04.07.2012,thiscourthasmadefollowingorder:
"Inviewofthememofiledinthecourttoday,petitionerisgrantedlibertytoconvert
thiswritpetitionintoC.R.P.
2.Petitionisdisposedofaccordingly."
16. The records would show that memo was filed on 17.07.2012. The order dated 04.07.2012
wouldmanifestthatquestionofmaintainabilityofwritpetitionwasnotheardanddecidedbythis
court.Ontheotherhand,thiscourthadgrantedlibertytopetitionerassoughtforbypetitionerin
anticipation of subsequent memo filed by petitioner. The order made by this court in
W.P.No.10552/2012 was on volition of petitioner and on subsequent memo filed by petitioner.
Therefore,submissionoflearnedseniorcounselforpetitionerthatordermadebythiscourton
04.07.2012 in W.P.No.10552/2012 is binding on parties and respondents cannot reagitate the
questionofmaintainabilitycannotbeaccepted.
17.Inadecisionreportedin(2009)5SCC162(inthecaseofNawabShaqafathAliKhan&Others
Vs.NawabImdadJahBahadur&Others&connectedmatters),theSupremeCourthasheld:
"48.IftheHighCourthadthejurisdictiontoentertaineitheranappealora revision
applicationorawritpetitionunderArticles226and227oftheConstitutionofIndia,
in a given case it, subject to fulfillment of other conditions, could even convert a
revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice versa in exercise of its
inherentpower.Indisputably,however,forthesaidpurpose,anappropriate case for

exerciseofsuchjurisdictionmustbemadeout."
Inviewofwhathasbeenheldintheaforestateddecision,thiscourthasjurisdictiontoentertain
either an appeal or a revision application or a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the
ConstitutionofIndia.Inthegivencase,thiscourtinexerciseofitsinherentpower,onfulfillment
ofotherconditionscouldconvertrevisionapplication into an appeal or vice versa, however, for
thesaidpurpose,anappropriatecaseforexerciseofsuchjurisdictionmustbemadeout.
18. The learned counsel for IIrespondent would submit that order of rejection of plaint falls
withinthedefinitionof'decree'undersection2(2)CPC.Therefore,petitionerhastofileanappeal
undersection96CPC.
19.Inordertoappreciatethissubmission,itisnecessarytorefertodefinitionof'decree'under
section2(2)CPC,whichreadsthus:
"Section2(2)"decree"meanstheformalexpressionofanadjudicationwhich,sofaras
regardstheCourtexpressingit,conclusivelydeterminestherightsofthepartieswith
regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either
preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the
determinationofanyquestionwithin1[xxx]section144,butshallnotinclude
anyadjudicationfromwhichanappealliesasanappealfromanorder,oranyorderof
dismissalfordefault."
The rejection of plaint is governed by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, reading as
hereunder:
11.Rejectionofplaint.Theplaintshallberejectedinthefollowingcases:
(a)whereitdoesnotdiscloseacauseofaction
(b)wherethereliefclaimedisundervalued,andtheplaintiff,onbeingrequiredbythe
CourttocorrectthevaluationwithinatimetobefixedbytheCourt,failstodoso
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper
insufficientlystamped,andtheplaintiff,onbeingrequiredbytheCourttosupplythe
requisitestamppaperwithinatimetobefixedbytheCourt,failstodoso
(d)wherethesuitappearsfromthestatementintheplainttobebarredbyanylaw
2[(e)whereitisnotfiledinduplicate
3[(f)wheretheplaintifffailstocomplywiththeprovisionsofRule9]
20.Oncarefulconsiderationoftheprovisionsofsection2(2)CPCandOrderVIIRule11CPC,I
amoftheconsideredopinionthatrejectionofplaintdoesnotincludepartialrejectionofplaint.
21.Inadecisionreportedin(2003)6SCC659(inthecaseofShivShaktiCoop.HousingSociety,
NagpurVs.SwarajDevelopersandOthers),theSupremeCourthasheld:
"19. It is a well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a
statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the
Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of
legislativeintent.Wordsandphrasesaresymbolsthatstimulatementalreferencesto
referents. The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the
Legislature enacting it. (See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price
Waterhouse8) The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the
language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as

alsotowhathasnotbeensaid.Asaconsequence,aconstructionwhichrequiresforits
support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as
meaninglesshastobeavoided.AsobservedinCrawfordv.Spooner9courtscannotaid
the Legislatures' defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend, and by
construction make up deficiencies which are left there. (See State of Gujarat v.
DilipbhaiNathjibhaiPatel ). It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words
into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. (See Stock v. Frank Jones
(Tipton) Ltd.11]. Rules of interpretation do not permit Courts to do so, unless the
provisionasitstandsismeaninglessorofdoubtfulmeaning.
CourtsarenotentitledtoreadwordsintoanActofParliamentunlessclearreasonforitistobe
found within the four corners of the Act itself. (Per Lord Loreburn L.C. in Vickers Sons and
MaximLtd.v.Evans12,quotedinJummaMasjid,v.KodimaniandraDeviah13)."
Therefore,words"rejectionofplaint"occurringunderprovisionsofsection2(2)CPCcannotbe
readas"partialrejectionofplaint".
Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of plaint if any one of the conditions enumerated
therein is satisfied. The object of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to reject frivolous litigations at the
inception. The partial rejection of plaint does not terminate the proceedings. Therefore,
submission of learned counsel for IIrespondent that partial rejection of plaint is appealable
undersection96CPCcannotbeaccepted.
The learned counsel for IIrespondent, placing reliance on various decisions of the Supreme
Court would submit that order made by this court in W.P.No.10552/2012, permitting the
petitionertoconvertwritpetitionintocivilrevisionpetitioncannotconferjurisdiction.
In the discussion made supra, I have held that petitioner cannot take shelter under the order
made in W.P.No.10552/2012. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to various decisions relied
uponbylearnedcounselforIIrespondentonthisaspect.
Thiscourthasjurisdictiontoentertaineitheranappeal, or revision application or writ petition
underarticle226or227oftheConstitutionofIndia.Thereisnolackofinherentjurisdictionor
territorialjurisdiction.
22. In a decision reported in (2009) 5 SCC 162 (in the case of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan &
OthersVs.NawabImdadJahBahadur&Othersandconnectedmatters),theSupremeCourthas
held:
"45.Itisnotcorrecttocontendthateveniftherevisionaljurisdictionisnotavailable,
aremedyintermsofArticles226and227oftheConstitutionofIndiawouldalsonot
be available in law. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in
SuryaDevRaiv.RamChanderRai9opiningthatnotonlytheHighCourtcanexercise
itssupervisory jurisdiction for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts within
the bounds of its jurisdiction as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India even a writ of certiorari can be issued wherefor the subordinate or inferior
courtswouldbeamenabletothesuperiorcourtsexercisingpowerofjudicialreviewin
termsofArticle226thereof."
"48.IftheHighCourthadthejurisdictiontoentertaineitheranappealora revision
applicationorawritpetitionunderArticles226and227oftheConstitutionofIndia,
in a given case it, subject to fulfillment of other conditions, could even convert a
revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice versa in exercise of its
inherentpower.Indisputably,however,forthesaidpurpose,anappropriate case for
exerciseofsuchjurisdictionmustbemadeout."

23.Inthediscussionmadesupra,Ihaveheldthatpetitionercannotavailremedyundersection
115 CPC. I have also held that an order of partial rejection of plaint is not appealable under
section96CPC.Thequestionwhetherthetrialcourtwasjustifiedinpartiallyrejectingtheplaint,
stillremainsatlarge.Thelawisfairlywellsettledthatendeavourofthecourtshallbetodecide
thecaseonmeritsandnottoforecloseremediesontechnicalgrounds.Therefore,itisnecessary
todecidetheremedyavailabletopetitionertochallengetheorderofpartialrejectionofplaint.
24. In the case of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan, the Supreme Court has held that if revisional
jurisdictionisnotavailable,aremedyintermsofarticles226and227oftheConstitutionofIndia
wouldbeavailableinlaw.Inparagraph48ofthejudgment,reportedin(2009)5SCC162(inthe
case of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & Others Vs. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur & Others and
connected matters), the Supreme Court has held that in a given case, subject to fulfillment of
otherconditions,theHighCourtinexerciseofitsinherentpowercouldevenconvertarevision
application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice versa, however, for the said purpose, an
appropriatecaseforexerciseofsuchjurisdictionmustbemadeout.
Inthecaseonhand,theimpugnedorderofpartialrejectionofplaintcannotbechallengedinan
appealundersection96CPC.Theremedyofrevisionisalsonotavailabletopetitioner.
25. In a decision reported in (2009) 5 SCC 162 (in the case of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan &
OthersVs.NawabImdadJahBahadur&Othersandconnectedmatters),theSupremeCourthas
held:
"45.Itisnotcorrecttocontendthateveniftherevisionaljurisdictionisnotavailable,
aremedyintermsofArticles226and227oftheConstitutionofIndiawouldalsonot
beavailableinlaw...."
If the revisional jurisdiction is not available, a remedy in terms of articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India would be available. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that
petitionercanchallengetheimpugnedorderofpartialrejectionofplaintunderarticles226and
227 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the background of litigation, I am of the
consideredopinionthatthisisanappropriatecaseforexerciseofinherentpowerofthiscourtto
directpetitionertoconvertthiscivilrevisionpetitionintoawritpetition.
26.Therefore,Ipassthefollowing:
ORDERThepetitionerisdirectedtoconvertthiscivilrevisionpetitionintoawritpetitionunder
articles226and227oftheConstitutionofIndia,within15daysfromtoday.CRPNo.276/2012is
disposedoffforstatisticalpurposes.
Sd/
JUDGESNN