PARVEEN BEGUM W/O MOULASAB SEKKER v. SUKHAARAMAPPA S/O BASAPPA BEWOOR
CRP/100039/2024 · 2025-03-10
E S Indiresh
Original Suitbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3844 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3844 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4470 CRP No. 100039 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100039 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN:
PARVEEN BEGUM W/O. MOULASAB SEKKER, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MATALADINNI, TQ: YELABURGA-583237. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
SUKHARAMAPPA S/O. BASAPPA BEWOOR, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER & AGRICULTURE, R/O. MATALADINNI, NOW AT TAWARGERE, TALUKA: KUSHTAGI-583237. …RESPONDENT
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06-01-2024, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT YELABURGA IN O.S. NO.
128/2017, ON I.A. NO.4 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT VIDE ANNEXURE-E, BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR WRIT AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY DEEM IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4470 CRP No. 100039 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
In this petition defendant is assailing the order dated 06.01.2024 in OS No.128/2017 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga, rejecting IA No.4 filed by the defendant under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
2. Having taken note of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, the defendant has raised plea that, OS No.41/2010 and OS No.135/2014 are pending consideration before the Competent Courts wherein, the issue involved are one and the same.
3. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Trial Court, I am of the view that, the defendants have to prove the same in a full fledged trial. In that view of the matter, revision is fails. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner/defendant to take up this plea before the Trial Court to prove their case in accordance with law.
4. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
SMM / CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14