- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 295 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SHIVAGANGA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT B.N. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O B.N. NANJUNDAPPA SIRA, AMRARAPURA ROAD JYOTHINAGARA, SIRA TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV R, AND SRI.K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. K. L NAGENDRA S/O LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O KALLUKOTE VILLAGE SIRA, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 2. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY K.H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O BHAVANI NAGAR SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137 3. SRI VENKATACHALA B.H S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O BAPPANADU, MADALURU POST SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137 4. SHREE SHAILA SAMSTANA JAGADGURU DR. CHANNABASAVARAJENDRA MAHASWAMIJI, NIDUMADIDI MUTT, PATTADYAKASHA GULURU VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK-561 207 REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 5. SRI G.N.B. ARADYA S/O K GUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137 6. SRI M N PUTTARUDRAPPA S/O NANJUNDAPPA MANAGER OF SRI KALINGAIHANA MUTT SY NO.47, KALLUKOTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137 7. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 8. THE TAHSILDAR SIRA TALUK, SIRA TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137 9. THE SIRA TALUK EDUCATION SOCIETY REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SIRA TALUK, SIRA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137 10. SRI SHIVARAMAIAH S/O PUTTRAMAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/A KALINGAIAHANA MUTT SY NO.47, KALLUKOTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. SUBRAMANYA AND SRI. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. RAJESHWARA P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-4; V/O/D. 12.06.2023, NOTICE TO R-5 TO R-10 IS D/W) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V IN OS NO.92/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a), (b) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner, an educational Trust, who is the 8th defendant in O.S.No.92/2021, is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-A, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (b) and (d) has been rejected by the trial court. 2. It is necessary to state certain undisputed facts before considering the submissions of the learned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 Counsels. Even as per the plaint filed by the three individuals along with the application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC, the plaintiffs are seeking permission of the court to maintain the suit in a representative capacity, seeking to set aside a judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Madhugiri in O.S.No.05/1984 dated 31.01.1990; to cancel the registered sale deed dated 24.02.1992; to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2020 in O.S.No.249/1993 and for such other relief’s. In the plaint, it is admitted that the 1st defendant-Sree Shaila Samstana Jagadguru Dr. Channabasavarajendra Mahaswamiji, Nidumamudi Mutt had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.05/1984 before the Civil Judge, Madugiri, seeking permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.47 measuring 860 feet x 800 feet situated at Kallukote village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk. The suit was filed against the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Tahsildar, Sira Taluk and Sira Education Society. The suit was contested by the defendants therein and the suit was decreed, permanently injuncting the defendants from interfering with the suit - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 schedule properties. The defendants viz., the State Government preferred a regular appeal in R.A.No.10/1994, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the 1st defendant sold the two portions of the suit schedule properties, which are described as schedule ‘A’ and schedule ‘B’ in the present suit under a registered sale deed dated 24.02.1992 in favour of the 8th defendant. However, subsequently, the 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.249/1993 against the 8th defendant seeking to set aside the sale deed 24.02.1992. The suit however, ended in a compromise between the 1st defendant and 8th defendant and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise petition. The rights of the 8th defendant flowing from the sale deed dated 24.02.1992 remained undisturbed. 3. However, it is alleged by the plaintiffs who claim to be persons interested in safeguarding Government properties which are meant for the use of general public, that the State Government failed to protect the interest of the State and general public, by not contesting the suit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 properly. It is alleged that there were many documents to establish the ownership of the State over the suit schedule properties, however, all those documents were not placed before the court and therefore, the judgment and decree obtained by the 1st defendant against the State Government would amount to fraud. In this background, the suit has been filed along with the application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is the 8th defendant in the suit submits that some relevant facts have not been stated in the plaint. It is submitted that the 8th defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.122/2005 against five individuals and the Chief Officer, President and Former President of the Town Municipal Council, Sira Town, seeking declaration in respect of the suit schedule properties viz., schedule ‘B’ and schedule ‘C’ properties in the present suit and for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. It was alleged in the suit filed at the hands of the 8th defendant/petitioner herein that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 Town Municipal Council, with the aid of the then President of the Town Municipal Council had executed sale deeds in respect of the portions of the schedule ‘B’ and schedule ‘C’ properties in favour of the private individuals named therein, although the Town Municipal Council has no right over the property. 5. It is further contended that the Senior Civil Judge, Sira, accepted the contention of the petitioner herein and decreed the suit on 31.03.2010, declaring that the plaintiff-Institution is the owner of the property on the basis of registered sale deeds and the sale deeds executed by the Town Municipal Council in favour of the defendants No.1 to 5 on 14.01.2000 and 22.05.2000 were illegal. However, the suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction were dismissed. Aggrieved of the portion of the judgment and decree where the prayer for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction were rejected by the trial court, petitioner herein filed a regular appeal in R.A.No.125/2010 and the appeal was allowed by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakur by a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 judgment and decree dated 13.06.2011 while directing defendants No.1 to 5 to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule properties to the plaintiffs by means of decree of mandatory injunction. The defendants were also restrained by a decree of permanent injunction. The private defendants No.1 to 5 filed regular second appeal in RSA No.1832/2011 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 11.08.2015. The private defendants thereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.44/2016, which was dismissed on 08.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had filed an execution petition in E.P.No.07/2015. It is thereafter that the present suit has been filed. Learned Counsel submits that the plaintiffs have filed the suit only to come to the rescue of the private defendants who suffered the judgment and decree and who are bound to vacate the premises in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the civil court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 6. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that in this background, it is very clear that the plaintiffs who claim to be protectors of public property are required to firstly establish their right to file a suit and seek such a declaration that the judgment and decree passed by the civil court against the State is an act of fraud and that despite the State Government losing the case, it will still enable private individuals to file a suit in a representative capacity to seek such a declaration that the judgment and decree is obtained by fraud. It is another matter that since there is a judgment and decree passed by a competent civil court and registered sale deeds are executed in favour of the 1st defendant, such registered documents, are documents which are presumed to be in the knowledge of the public, and therefore, the question of limitation would also arise. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents/plaintiffs sought to take this Court through averments made in the plaint, more particularly, to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 paragraph No.11, where it is stated that as far back as 1959-60 upto 1972-73, the Government had sanctioned portions of the land in Sy.No.47 of Kallukote village in favour of the various Government Organizations, including the Judicial Department for establishment of a court building in a land measuring 3 Acres, 13½ Guntas to revenue staff quarters construction and another 3 Acres and 36 Guntas in favour the Police Department. However, to a pointed question put the learned Counsel for the respondents as to why the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the District is not arrayed as a party to the proceedings, if there is an allegation that the suit schedule property consists of a court building, the learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiffs are prepared to implead the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge. 8. Insofar as the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit is concerned, learned counsel sought to place reliance on T.Arivandandam /vs./ T.V.Satyapal and Another – 1977 (4) SCC 467, wherein it was held that a - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 suit filed by an aggrieved person whose right to use public streets was prejudicially is maintainable and suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of alleged non compliance of the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held that the suit against alleged trespass even if it is not a representative suit filed on behalf of the community, could be a suit maintainable. 9. Learned counsel would also submit that in the present case an application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed along with the suit and leave was granted by the trial court before proceeding in the matter and thereafter the defendants after entering appearance have also contested the matter in respect of an order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court. Attention of this Court is drawn to Order dated 17.04.2023 passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1394/2023. It is submitted that the petitioner herein had filed the Miscellaneous First Appeal challenging the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 JMFC, Sira who granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants, more particularly the petitioner herein from putting up construction in the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties till disposal of the suit. It is submitted that this Court accepted the contention of the petitioner herein that it had started construction and is continuing with the construction and under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, this Court thought it fit to dispose of the appeal by modifying the impugned order by permitting the petitioner to complete the construction, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall not claim any equity and the construction would be subject to the final outcome of the suit. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the petitioner herein have accepted the fact that they would contest the matter on merits and therefore they were debarred from filing such an application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and perused the petition papers. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court having regard to the undisputed facts narrated herein above, it would be incumbent upon the plaintiffs to firstly satisfy this Court as to their right to file the suit and seek such a declaration in respect of a judgment and decree passed by a competent court which considered the case of the plaintiffs and the respondent - State Government and its authorities. In this regard, it would be relevant to notice a decision cited by the learned counsel for petitioner, which is an often quoted judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sri T.Arivandandam/vs./T.V.Satyapal and another, wherein it was held as follows: “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, C.P.C. An activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: "It is dangerous to be too good." 6. The trial court in this case will remind itself of Section 35-A C.P.C. and take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and altogether groundless. In any view, that suit has no survival value and should be - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 disposed of forthwith after giving an immediate hearing to the parties concerned.” 12. It would also be beneficial to notice a judgment of her Ladyship Justice R.Banumathi, as was rendered when Her Ladyship was a judge of the Madras High Court in case of K.K. Swaminathan/vs./Srinivasagam - 2003 SCC Online MAD 967, wherein it was held that in the Courts of Law thousands of actions/suits are tried everyday/ every month. On the issues and the evidence let in, several matters are adjudicated upon and decrees are passed. If all those unsuccessful litigants are to allege that the judgment and decree passed against them is fraudulently obtained on forged documents or on perjury, there would be no finality to litigation. If such suits are allowed to be filed, the Court Proceeding to hear the same would amount to subversion of Judicial System by the onslaught from within the system. Unless such actions are stopped and sternly dealt with, a time would come where almost all the unsuccessful litigants would come to the Court alleging that the decree was obtained against them - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 fraudulently. The fraud contemplated under Section 44 is entirely different. The actual positive fraud contemplated under Section 44 is not at all established. 13. In paragraph No.30 of the said judgment, it was held as follows: “30. In cases of this nature, it is not as if the Court is powerless or its hands are tied merely because the matter comes to the notice of the Court in the revisional Jurisdiction under Sec. 115, CPC. The investiture of power u/S.115, CPC is of superintendence and visitorial….Not fettered to deal with such situations. Where there is clear abuse of process of Court, the Court has to view such conduct seriously and the same is to be halted to save precious time of the public and the Court being wasted. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, 1998 (3) SCC 573 elaborately considering the abuse of process of the Court, the Supreme Court has held that the Court has power to stop such frivolous and vexatious proceedings. The Supreme Court has only cautioned that such power is to be exercised with circumspection. It is necessary to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court, which are very much relevant for our purpose. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 “42. Under Order 6, Rule 16, the Court may, at any state of the proceeding, Order to be struck out, inter alia, any matter in any pleading which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Mulla in his Treatise on the Code of Civil Procedure, (15th Edn., Vol.II.P.1179, note 7) has stated that power under clause (c) of Order 6, Rule 15, of the Code is confined to cases where the abuse of the process of the Court is manifest from the pleadings; and that this power is unlike the power under Section 151 where under Courts have inherent power to strike out pleadings or to stay or dismiss proceedings which are an abuse of their process. In the present case the High Court has held the suit to be an abuse of the process of the Court on the basis of what is stated in the plaint. 43. The Supreme Court Practice 1995 published by Sweet & Maxwell in paragraphs 18/19/33 (p.344) explains the phrase “abuse of the process of the Court” thus: This term connotes that the process of the Court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The Court will prevent improper use of its - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation….The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material”. 44. One of the examples as an abuse of the process of the Court is re-litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The re-agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the Court's discretion that has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised only in special cases. The Court should also be satisfied that there is no change of the suit succeeding. 45. In the case of Greenhalgh v. Mallard the Court had to consider different proceedings on the same cause of action for conspiracy, but supported by different averments. The Court held that if the plaintiff has chosen to put his case in one way, he cannot thereafter bring the same transaction before the Court, put his case in another way and say that he is relying on a new cause of action. In such circumstances he can be met with the plea of res judicata or the statement or plaint may be struck out on the ground that the action is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. 46. In Mellkenny v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Force the Court of - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 appeal in England struck out the pleading on the ground that the action was in abuse of the process of the Court since it raised an issue identical to that which had been finally determined at the plaintiffs' earlier criminal trial. The Court said even when it is not possible to strike out the plaint on the ground of issue estoppel, the action can be struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court because it is an abuse for a party to re-litigate a question or issue which has already been decided against him even though the other party cannot satisfy the strict rule of res judicata or the requirement of issue estoppel”. In my view, the above observation of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the case in hand. I find that in the interest of the System, it is just and necessary that the suit O.S. 2473/1996 is to be ordered to be struck off.” 14. These judgments are sufficient to hold that having regard to the averments made in the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiffs who claimed to be responsible citizens seeking to protect public property from falling into wrong hands and being usurped to the detriment of the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 general public, were required to firstly impress upon the civil court as to how they get a right to seek such a prayer in a matter that was contested by the State Government. Vague allegations are made in the plaint that a court complex is established in one of the suit schedule properties. However, the Principal District and Sessions Judge or the Registrar of this Court is not made a party to the suit. No such action is found to have been taken by the District Judiciary or the High Court in respect of the suit schedule property. Even otherwise, if it is true that there exist a court complex in the property in question, and if there is any disturbance at the hands of the petitioners herein, the District Judiciary will necessarily take steps to protect the interest of the Courts. Merely by making such vague allegations, the plaintiffs cannot prejudice the minds of the Court in accepting that there seems to be some dispute wherein the interest of the District Judiciary is also involved. Viewed from any angle, this Court will not hesitate to hold that a suit of this nature cannot be maintained by the plaintiffs. A second suit at - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:11183 CRP No. 295 of 2022 the hands of the plaintiffs herein, merely by alleging fraud, would not be sufficient to maintain a suit in a representative capacity. Moreover, subsequent litigations have also cropped up insofar as the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.8 is concerned and once again the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.122/2005 and have succeeded right up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that a suit cannot be permitted to continue in this fashion. 15. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-A is set aside. Further the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11(a) (b) and (d) r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is allowed and the plaint is rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL/KLY