- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2286 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: MOHAN KUMAR A. S/O. LATE ASHWATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.265, 2ND BLOCK 6TH MAIN, R. T. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MURTHY D. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR, SRI SUBAIR K. M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASHWATH GOWDA J. S/O. JAYARAMAIAH A. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.3, 'E' BLOCK POLICE OFFICERS RESIDENCE BEHIND JALAHALLI POLICE STATION JALAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 013. NOW AT THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION POLICE STATION ROAD, SOPPUGUDDE THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 2. REENA SUVARNA N. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE R/AT NO.125, SRI RENUKAMBA KRUPA GAYATHRI NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD 2ND STAGE, BCC LAYOUT CHANDRA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040. ALSO AT CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH COTTONPET MAIN ROAD SULTANPET, BAKSHI GARDENS CHICKPET BENGALURU - 560 053. 3. VINAYAK PATIL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DEPUTY SECRETARY CABINET SECRETARIAT R/AT B.1 WING, 10TH FLOOR PT. DEENADAYAL ANTTYODAYA BHAVAN CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 003. 4. HEMA S. RAJU W/O. SIDDARAJU B. S. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.1452, 37TH 'C' CROSS 11TH MAIN, 4TH 'T' BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3, NOTICE OF SERVICE TO R-4, IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 13/1/2025) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.10, 11 AND 13 IN O.S. NO.3813 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE IA NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., I.A.11 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC., AND I.A.13 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-26), on I.A. Nos.10, 11 and 13 in Original Suit No.3813 of 2023. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. 3. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are under: The plaintiff is a business man, having high reputation in society, due to his business accomplishments, thus, became public figure in the city of Bengaluru and entire State of Karnataka. On 25.05.2021, defendant No.4, Hema S. Raju, lodged a complaint before Deputy Superintendent of Police, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 Special Task Force, BDA, making allegations that she represents some owners of lands at Bengaluru, which were acquired by the BDA for formation of Arkavathi Layout and the plaintiff allegedly operates in dealing with sites and lands belonging to BDA. Hence, the Task Force, BDA, issued notice to the plaintiff to which, the plaintiff responded vide his reply dated 24.06.2021, later, the BDA after investigation, passed orders on 06.08.2021, wherein, it was found that the complaint lodged by defendant No.4 regarding "illegal financial transactions" lacks evidence and the allegation against the plaintiff is not proved. Thus, defendant No.4 filed another identical complaint before the DCP, Central Division, dated 18.10.2021, on the basis of which, the DCP, forwarded it through an endorsement dated 21.10.2021, to R.T. Nagar Police Station. Hence, R.T. Nagar Police issued notice to the plaintiff, for which, the plaintiff has given reply on 01.11.2021. The investigation on the complaint was still pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, defendant No.1, Ashwathgowda, issued several notices to defendant No.4 to appear before him along with the documents, but, defendant No.4 did not appear before him. On 15.11.2021, defendant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 No.4 filed one more complaint making similar allegations and on that basis, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have registered a complaint on 16.11.2021 against the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 being the Inspector of R.T. Nagar Police Station, defendant No.2 being the Assistant Commissioner of Police, defendant No.3 being the Deputy Commissioner of Police, maliciously registered an F.I.R. against the plaintiff in Crime No.254 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506 of IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the registration of F.I.R., the appellant/plaintiff approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.9116 of 2021 for quashing of the F.I.R. The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter, allowed the petition by quashing the F.I.R in Crime No.254 of 2021 of R T Nagar Police Station. While quashing the F.I.R., the learned Single Judge observed that there was no material found for any kind of misappropriation of property by the petitioner therein/appellant. The Court had also observed that defendant No.4 is a broker and not a land owner and in fact, she has misrepresented the petitioner therein/appellant herein in her complaint. Thus, the appellant has taken a contention that the action of the respondents/defendants is only with an intention - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 to defame him, his reputation and personal standing within society. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, to declare that the action of the defendants are defamatory and malicious in nature, which caused damage to his reputation, made him to suffer emotional distress and financial loss, for which, the plaintiff is entitled for compensation. Hence, he filed a suit for declaration on the ground of malicious prosecution. 5. Per contra, defendant Nos.1 to 3 before the trial court have taken the contention that they have acted in accordance with law and lodging of FIR is in discharge of their official duty and the plaintiff has filed the suit without obtaining prior sanction as required under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and therefore, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are protected under Sections 169 and 170 of the Act and hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the said provisions of the Act for want of sanction against them. Further, it is contended that prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff had not issued notice under Section 80(2) of CPC. Thus, in the absence of the statutory notice as required under Section 80(2) CPC to them, the suit is not maintainable against them. Thus, they filed I.A.Nos.10, 11 and 13 under Order 7, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the other hand, the appellant/plaintiff has filed objections before the trial court. 6. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, formulated the following points for determination, which are as under: 1. Whether the First Information Report lodged in Crime No.254/2021 of R.T. Nagar Police Station was done by defendants No.1 to 3 in discharge of their official duties and under colour of duty? 2. Whether previous sanction of the Government is required to institute the suit against the defendant No.1 to 3 for the acts alleged by them? 3. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by law? 4. Whether the plaint can be returned for want of compliance of Section 80(2) of CPC? 5. What order? 7. The trial Court answered point Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and point No.3 in the negative and consequently, allowed I.A.Nos.10, 11 and 13 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a and d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') and declared that the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant Nos.1 to 3 is not maintainable for want of prior sanction under - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 Section 170 of the Act and for non-compliance of Section 80(1) of CPC. Consequently, the trial Court returned the plaint to the plaintiff reserving liberty to him to present a fresh plaint against defendant No.4 only. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant/plaintiff filed this appeal contending that, the impugned order of the trial Court is wholly erroneous, contrary to the material on record and suffers from non-application of mind and is accordingly liable to be set aside. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that a plaint cannot be rejected in-part under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the trial Court has absolutely erred in ignoring settled position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHADAKSHARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 48, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for the acts done by a public servant for the fabrication of records, prior sanction is not required. Therefore, in light of the blatant falsifying of records, allegations, repeated verbatim complaints, the principle of law laid down as afore stated would take away any - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 requirement for sanction as envisaged by the trial Court and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 10. Further, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that rejecting a plaint in-part was contrary to law and misapplication of the settled principles of law with regard to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It is well settled position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GEETHA D/O. LATE KRISHNA & ORS. V. NANJUNDASWAMY & ORS reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1407, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rejecting a plaint in-part was contrary to law and misapplication of the settled principles of law pertaining to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court is bad in law, erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 11. It is further contended that it is well settled principle of law that under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the true test is to first read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. That upon reading of such plaint, if the same were to disclose a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must fail. This ratio has been laid down by the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DAHIBEN v. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366. 12. It is further contended that in the instant case, the trial Court has not at all appreciated the plaint as a whole and has gone to adjudicate on various aspects without first taking the plaint as a whole and ensuring there is a triable issue involved in the matter. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 13. It is further contended that the trial Court attempts to examine as to whether the Respondents-Police Officers were discharging their duties in relation to the assertions made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The very act of the trial court to ascertain whether the officers were discharging duties is one that would traverse into the realm of evidence. The trial Court cannot determine the same without examining the evidence and that the very act is contrary to what is to be examined in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. As per the above provision, the plaint be vitiated only on the contents of plaint and its pleadings are to be examined and not anything in the realm of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 evidence. Therefore, this act would render the impugned order as bad in law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 14. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions : 1. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407) 2. Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka (2024 SCC OnLine SC 48) 3. Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3726) 15. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 3 being the public servants have acted in accordance with law, as such and in discharge of their official duty, they have registered the FIR and conducted the investigation in accordance with law and therefore, they are protected under Sections 169 and 170 of the Act. Further, no sanction was obtained to prosecute the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the mandatory notice as required under Section 80(1) of CPC, was not issued to them. Thus, the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint against the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 3 and hence, no interference is called for by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal. 16. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the following points that would arise for our consideration are:- 1. Whether the trial court is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule (a) and (d) CPC for want of sanction under Sections 169 and 170 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and for non- compliance of Section 80(2) of CPC ? 17. What transpires from the material available on record is that the appellant being an accomplished businessman, a complaint was filed against him by respondent No.4 on similar set of facts and circumstances and the FIR was quashed by learned Single Judge. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 4 on the ground of malicious prosecution. 18. In this appeal, we are called upon to decide two questions. The first relates to the true and correct application of the principles underlying the "rejection of plaint" under Order - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 VII Rule 11 of CPC, to the facts of the case. The second question relates to the legality of rejection of a plaint in-part. The trial Court returned the plaint to present the same afresh only against defendant No.4 and the plaint against defendant Nos.1 to 3 was rejected. For the reasons to follow, we hold that the trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order, on two counts. Firstly, by miss applying the well established principles as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and secondly, by rejecting the plaint in part, which is again contrary to the law on the subject. 19. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.3813/2023 to declare that the action of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in lodging the first information in Crime No.254 of 2021 of RT Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506 of IPC against him at the instance of defendant No.4 is defamatory, malicious and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,00,00,000/- from defendant Nos.1 to 4 and other injunctive reliefs. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 20. After receipt of the summons, defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed I.As.10, 11 and 13 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. While the trial Court allowed the applications, dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff in-part on the ground that respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 3 being the public servants are protected under Sections 169 and 170 of the Act and no sanction was obtained for prosecution of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and so also mandatory notice as required under Section 80(1) of CPC was not issued against them. 21. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse Sections 169, 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and Section 80(1) of CPC. "169. Protection of Magistrate, Police Officer or public servant.— (1) No Magistrate or Police Officer shall be liable to any penalty or to payment of damage on account of any act done in good faith in pursuance or intended pursuance of any duty imposed on any authority conferred on him by any provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force or any rule, order or direction made or given therein. (2) No public servant or person duly authorised or appointed shall be liable to any penalty or to payment of any damages for giving effect in good faith to any such order or direction issued with apparent authority by the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 Government or by a person empowered in that behalf under this Act or any rule or order or direction made or given thereunder. 170. Suits or prosecutions in respect of acts done under colour of duty as aforesaid not to be entertained without sanction of Government.- (1) In any case of alleged offence by the Commissioner, a Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such Commissioner, Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained except with the previous sanction of the Government. (2) In the case of an intended suit on account of such a wrong as aforesaid, the person intending to sue shall be bound to give to the alleged wrongdoer one month's notice at least of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrong complained of, failing which such suit shall be dismissed. (3) The plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid has been served on the defendant and the date of such service, and shall state whether any, and if so, what tender of amends has been made by the defendant. A copy of the said notice shall be annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied with a declaration by the plaintiff of the time and manner of service thereof. Sec.80(1) of CPC.- Notice.- (1) [Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted] [against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir)] or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been [delivered to, or left at the office of- - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 (a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, [except where it relates to a railway], a Secretary to that Government; (b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway, the General Manager of that railway; (bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that Government in this behalf; (c) in the case of a suit against [any other State Government],a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district, and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. 22. In this case, the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 3 have registered the case against the appellant/plaintiff. In fact, the complaint lodged by defendant No.4 was disposed of by BDA after enquiry and investigation for want of evidence. Later, the complaint was lodged by defendant No.4 to the DCP alleging illegal financial transaction, but, defendant No.4 remained absent inspite of issuance of notice to her by the Police Inspector, R.T.Nagar police station, Bengaluru and later, on identical issue, defendant No.4 filed one more complaint to the DCP and it was referred to RT Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, who in turn, registered the FIR in - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 Crime No.254 of 2021 on 16.11.2021. It shows that, the Police officers without perusing the material on record have registered the case and proceeded with the investigation and the same was quashed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No.9116/2021. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that the process of registration of FIR was not within the purview of their official duty, but, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have taken contention that they have discharged their duty in official capacity, thus, they are protected under Sections 169 and 170 of the Act, for the Act done by them under the colour of duty. Section 169 of the Act provides that if the Act was done in good faith, the Police Officer is not liable to any penalty or damage. Section 170 of the Act makes it clear that the act was done under the colour of the duty or the wrong alleged to have been done under the colour or even excess of any such duty, no suit can be instituted or entertained except with the previous sanction of the Government. In this case, the appellant/plaintiff has not obtained previous sanction of the Government to initiate prosecution against respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 3. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 23. In the case of OM PRAKASH YADAV v. NIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAYA AND OTHERS reported in (2024) SCC ONLINE SC 3726, the Hon'ble Apex Court at para Nos.83 and 84 has observed as under: "83. As far as respondent no. 1 is concerned, it is made clear that there would be no requirement for sanction since he was not acting in the discharge of his official duty by virtue of not being posted at Murar Police Station, Gwalior at the relevant time when the alleged false case was registered. As a consequence, the extent of the involvement of respondent no. 1 in the alleged conspiracy to murder can be determined by the Trial Court upon a further examination of the evidence adduced before itself. However, so far as the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively are concerned, if the case of the prosecution that they had also played a dubious role in registering a false case is correct then the requirement of sanction would not be a sin qua non for proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. However, the defence must be given an opportunity to rebut the same by leading appropriate evidence. 84. At this juncture on a prima facie examination of the materials adduced before us, we are of the opinion that the criminal proceedings pending before the CJM, Firozabad as Case Nos. 67 of 2008 and 67A of 2009 should not have been quashed at such a preliminary stage. In cases where there is a legitimate doubt as regards whether sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is required or not, the progress of the trial must not be hampered or unnecessarily delayed. Therefore, the CJM, Firozabad had rightly taken cognizance of the two charge sheets vide its orders dated 24.11.2008 and 10.08.2009 respectively. The High Court committed an error in failing to consider this aspect while quashing the proceedings in Case No. 67 of 2008 and 67A of 2009 respectively vide its impugned order." 24. Thus, in the aforesaid decision, the primary issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether sanction under 197 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 Cr.P.C was required to prosecute Police Officers who allegedly fabricated a false case under the Excise Act to create an alibi for a murder of accused. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "was the Act done in official capacity or entirely outside duty". Further, creating false evidence is not a legitimate Police duty, therefore, there must be a reasonable connection between the Act and the official duty. In this case, defendant Nos.1 to 3 had the knowledge that an identical complaint was lodged against the appellant before BDA, the same was disposed of by the BDA on the ground that the allegation lacks evidence. Later, a similar complaint was lodged against the appellant by defendant No.4, but, she remained absent even after issuance of repeated notices to her and she did not appear before the Police Officers nor produced the required documents. Finally, she lodged one more identical complaint against the appellant on 15.11.2021 on similar set of facts and allegations to defendant Nos.1 to 3, but, defendant Nos.1 to 3 without examining the earlier aspects of the matter registered the FIR against the appellant/plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the trial Court should not have rejected the plaint at such a preliminary stage for want of sanction. It - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 appears that there would be no requirement for sanction since defendant Nos.1 to 3 appears to have not acted in discharge of their official duty, by not perusing the material available on record. If the contention of the appellant is that defendant Nos.1 to 3 had played a dubious role in registering a false case, then the requirement of sanction would not be a sin qua non for proceeding further with the suit. However, the defence must be given an opportunity to rebut the same by leading appropriate evidence. In cases where there is a legitimate doubt as regards whether sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is required or not, the progress of the trial must not be hampered or unnecessarily delayed. 25. So far as rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it is relevant to dwell upon Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Before considering the legality of the approach adopted by the trial Court, it is necessary to consider Order VII Rule 11, CPC and the precedents on the subject. 26. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. 27. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by any law under Rule 11(d) CPC, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. 28. The whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court. However, the purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court, and exercise the mind of the Court. The sword need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 29. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. In exercise of the power under this provision, the court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. 30. It is apparent from the above, that the appellant/plaintiff specifically pleaded the manner of harassment he meted out by the action of the defendants and inspite of the fact that respondent No.4/defendant No.4 had filed a false complaint against the appellant/plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 3 registered the case without perusing the same, in collusion with defendant No.4. If the statements in the plaint are taken to be true, it appears that defendant Nos.1 to 3 - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 though had knowledge of earlier complaint lodged before BDA, the same was disposed of for want of evidence and the subsequent complaint lodged by defendant No.4, wherein, she remained absent inspite of issuance of notice to her, however, finally defendant Nos.1 to 3 registered the complaint, which appears to be not in the colour of their official duty, thus, this is a matter of trial and the result of which would depend upon the evidence adduced by the appellant/plaintiff. At this stage, we are not concerned with the correctness of the averments, except to state that the appellant/plaintiff has the carriage of the proceedings, and has to discharge the heavy burden of proving his case. In so far as the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is concerned, this Court will proceed only that far, to examine whether the plaint is barred by any law, and no further. 31. The trial Court without considering the contents of plaint has allowed I.As.10, 11 and 13 CPC under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which is contrary to the well established principles. In fact, the plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Further, it is not permissible to reject the plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint only against some of the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 defendants and continue the same against the others. If the plaint survives against certain defendants, Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial. Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole, but, not in part. Similar view has been taken in Geetha's case cited supra. [ 32. In view of the above referred principle, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the plaint in part and permitting the plaintiff to prosecute the case only against defendant No.4. This approach while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is impermissible. 33. So far as mandatory notice as required under Section 80(2) CPC is concerned, it is imperative that except where urgent and immediate relief is to be granted by the Court, in which case, a suit against the Government or a public officer, may be instituted, in the absence of notice, but, with the leave of the Court. The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of THE STATE OF A.P. V. PIONEER BUILDERS, A.P reported in (2006) 12 SCC 119. In view of - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 the discussion made hereinabove and the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, the order passed by the trial court requires interference by this Court. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the trial Court. For the reasons stated above, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.3813/2023 by the learned X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-26) is set aside. The suit is restored on its file. 3. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to consider the plaint afresh by following the denovo procedure. 4. The appellant and respondents are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21.04.2025 without waiting for any notice from the trial Court. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:11102-DB RFA No. 2286 of 2024 5. The observations made hereinabove is only with regard to disposal of the appeal and the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made during the course of this order and it shall proceed to dispose of the suit independently. 6. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8