- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10263 WP No. 3358 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3358 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S VBHC MUMBAI VALUE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VBHC HOUSE, NO.74 AND 75 MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR BENGALURU-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SMT. PREETHI NAIR K …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. NAGAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SHRI. V BASAVA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3. SHRI. MARIGAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 4. SHRI. CHANNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10263 WP No. 3358 of 2025 R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT ARE DODDABELLE GRAMA VIDYAPEETA POST, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B. ROOPESHA., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS IN O.S. NO. 1273/2023 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-G) AND M.A. NO. 98/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-K) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1, challenging the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in M.A.No.98/2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), whereby the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) on I.A.Nos.I and II in O.S.No.1273/2024 has been confirmed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10263 WP No. 3358 of 2025 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration. Along with the plaint, they have filed I.A.No.I under XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court by order dated 30.07.2024 granted ex-parte interim order in favour of the plaintiffs. After appearance, the defendants have filed I.A.No.II under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC seeking for vacation of interim order granted by the trial Court on 30.07.2024 in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court by common order dated 08.11.2024 has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs and dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed the appeal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in M.A.No.98/2024. The First Appellate Court by order dated 15.01.2025 has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court dated 08.11.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 is before this Court in this writ petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10263 WP No. 3358 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds. One of the main grounds is that the suit filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. For the purpose of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have produced the valuation slip and have valued the suit property at Rs.50,00,000/-. The trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the injunction order passed by the trial Court is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court must be raised before the Court of the first instance, and cannot be raised before the First Appellate Court. According to Section 21(2) of CPC, no objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10263 WP No. 3358 of 2025 failure of justice. The First Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the appeal. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition. 4. In the case on hand, the issues have not yet been settled. The appeal has been filed only against the order passed by the trial Court on I.A.Nos.I and II. Therefore, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the trial Court is still open to be agitated before the trial Court. 5. The provisions of Section 21 of CPC are applicable only in cases where an appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. When the suit is pending, in the appeal filed against the order passed by the trial Court on IAs, it is open for the parties to raise objections regarding pecuniary jurisdiction. Once a decree is passed, such objections cannot be raised before the First Appellate Court. 6. In the present case, it is a miscellaneous appeal, which is filed against an order passed by the trial Court on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10263 WP No. 3358 of 2025 I.A.Nos.I and II, and not a regular appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the finding given by the First Appellate Court is contrary to Section 21 of the CPC. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 7. Since the petitioner has already filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for the return of the plaint, the order passed by the trial Court on 08.11.2024 is required to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, I passed the following order: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in M.A.No.98/2024, whereby the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on I.A.Nos.I and II in O.S.No.1273/2024, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court, is set aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10263 WP No. 3358 of 2025 c) The trial Court is directed to first decide the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. If the said application is dismissed, then the trial Court is directed to reconsider I.A.Nos.I and II, in accordance with law. d) Till then, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24226/2024 disposed of on 30.09.2024 shall continue. e) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the applications, as expeditiously as possible, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In view of disposal of petition, all pending IAs., if any, are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16