- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4223 CRP No. 818 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 818 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S SHALOM VOYAGERS PVT LTD., HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT FLAT NO.12, 3RD CROSS, MARIAN MANJIL, 57, REYNOLD ROAD MUMBAI-400008 CURRENTLY AT: FLAT NO.1201 12TH FLOOR, HUDA HEIGHTS, 385-A SANE GURUJI MARG, AGRIPAD MUMBAI-400011 MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR JOHN ZACHARIAH …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.G.RAGHAVAN., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAYAPPA Y HADAGALI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI PREMKUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A DOOR NO .174 3RD CROSS, 3RD STAGE RAJEEV NAGARA DEVANURU BADAVANE Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4223 CRP No. 818 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER MR ZABIULLA S/O LATE ATHA UR REHMAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R.S. NAIDU NAGAR MAIN ROAD, KESARE N R MOHALLA, MYSURU-570007 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.7 IN OS NO.522/2022 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MYSURU., REJECTING THE IA NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE(A) AND (D) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Though notice is served on the respondent/plaintiff there is no representation. By an interim order dated 03.12.2024 this Court had stayed all further proceedings in O.S.No.522/2022 on the file of the VIII Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, till the disposal of the this Civil Revision Petition. Despite the suit being listed thereafter and the plaintiff being aware of the orders passed by this - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4223 CRP No. 818 of 2024 Court and matter being adjourned on account of the stay order passed by this Court, there is no representation for the respondent. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.G.Raghavan appearing for the petitioner submits that a writ petition was also filed by the respondent herein in W.P.No.23833/2022 seeking to quash the mutation entry made in M.R.No.T7/2021-22 dated 13.04.2022 and the entry in the RTC pertaining to the suit schedule property. This Court by order dated 23.04.2024 noticed the contention of the petitioner herein who was the respondent, that out of 1 acre 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.163/1 of Maragowdanahalli, Mysuru Taluk, earlier an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas of land were already acquired and in the subsequent notification, the remaining 5 guntas of land were also acquired and award was passed in respect of 5 guntas of land. However, the learned Senior Counsel who was appearing for the petitioner in the said writ petition contended that unless the respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4223 CRP No. 818 of 2024 produces a copy of the award in respect of the acquisition notification pertaining to 1 acre 34 guntas, the award cannot be treated as an information which would establish the acquisition of the lands. This Court directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure copy of the award passed on 25.01.1948 and warning was also given to the petitioner therein that should the learned Additional Government Advocate secure a copy of the award, the writ petition will be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner therein still insisted that a copy of the award should be placed before this Court. However, subsequently, the petitioner therein filed a memo on 31.05.2024 stating that he too secured a copy of the award which was passed on 25.01.1948 and therefore while tendering unconditional apology before this Court, the petitioner sought leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that the petition was filed on misconception of facts. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the writ petition on 31.05.2024 recording the apology - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4223 CRP No. 818 of 2024 tendered by the petitioner therein who is none other than the plaintiff in O.S.No.522/2022. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submits that thereafter the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure bringing to the notice of the trial court the orders passed by this Court and the fact that the suit schedule property was acquired in the year 1947-48 and award was also passed in the year 1948 and therefore there is no substance in the suit, there being no cause of action and the suit was also barred by law. Despite these contentions, the trial court has rejected the application and therefore the defendants are before this Court. 4. Having regard to the admitted fact that the suit schedule property has been acquired by the than government or the Highness of Maharaja of Mysore and award was passed in the year 1948, and further, after several transactions, the defendants have acquired the property under registered sale deeds, the suit for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4223 CRP No. 818 of 2024 permanent injunction could not have been filed by the plaintiffs. It is also noticeable that in the course of the order dated 23.04.2024, this Court has also noticed that the comments made by this Court may affect the suit filed by the petitioner therein. 5. Having regard to these admitted facts, the trial court should have allowed the application and rejected the plaint. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the VIII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the defendants in I.A.No.7 under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the plaint is rejected. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL