- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29069 RFA No. 118 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2025 (DEC) BETWEEN: T.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O MEDA GAVAIAH SETTY, R/AT NO.536/11, 2ND FLOOR KOLLA COMPLEX, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANOHAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.K.SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE K.S.KRISHNAN, R/AT M/S. SANKAR SILK HOUSE, KOLLA COMPLEX, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560002. 2. N.LAKSHMI GUPTHA, W/O. NAGARAJ GUPTHA, ADVOCATE, NO.157, 11TH CROSS, NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR, NGEF LAYOUT, NAGARABAVI ROAD, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED ON IA IN OS NO.1497/2020 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29069 RFA No. 118 of 2025 AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2024 in O.S. No.1497/2020, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, based on the application filed by defendant No.1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking for declaration with the following prayers: “1. Declare that the judgment and decree passed on 25.08.2014 by Chief Judge, SCCH-1 in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29069 RFA No. 118 of 2025 H.R.C. No.166/2013 is not binding on Plaintiff and as he has sought an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through S.C. Legal Services Committee, for which, at this juncture, the plea of the plaintiff may please be considered. 2. Direct the Defendant No.1 to give re- position to the Plaintiff/ Objector who also paid the arrears of Rent to the Defendant No. 1 accordingly, the order passed on 25.08.2014 in H.R.C. No. 166/2013, being a rent payer along with Defendant No.2. 3. Declare that this Hon'ble court may please directe the first defendant to hand over the materials such as furniture-2 chairs, 2 small racks, one big racks; valuables: gold chain, gold bracelet and gold ring (given by plaintiff's mother); 2 bed sheets, one mirror, photo of Gods, Ceiling fan, 3 old shirts and 2 trousers, CDs & PDs, etc., several correspondence letters made to the then President of India, Prime Minister of India, UPA Chairperson and others of State and Central Governments including their reply and courier receipts for 12 years (kept in the travel briefcase), along with records, publications, books, papers, etc., which belongs to plaintiff, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29069 RFA No. 118 of 2025 many items cannot be compensated in terms of money. 4. Pass such other order of relief/reliefs deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and award cost, if deems fit in the interest of justice and equity”. 4. During the pendency of the Execution Petition No.1945/2014 arising out of HRC No.166/2013, the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, however, the said application was dismissed, and the plaintiff did not prefer any appeal or challenge the said rejection order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in HRC No.166/2013, plaintiff was not impleaded and the judgment in HRC No.166/2013 was passed without giving proper opportunity to the plaintiff. It is contended that the decree is not binding upon him. Further, it is the submission that the suit filed for declaration is maintainable and discloses a cause of action, the Trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29069 RFA No. 118 of 2025 Court has erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 without giving an opportunity for trial. 6. The point that arises for consideration before this Court is: “Whether the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the plaint warrants any interference by this Court?” 7. The Trial Court upon considering the pleadings and the documents on record allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint. The Trial Court held that the suit is barred by law in view of the earlier proceedings and decree passed in HRC No.166/2013 and the plaintiff is claiming right under the tenant. Further, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has already exhausted his remedy under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and failed to challenge the rejection of that application. 8. Undisputedly, the plaintiff had already participated in the execution proceedings and filed an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29069 RFA No. 118 of 2025 objector application under Order XXI Rule 97, which was considered and rejected. The failure to appeal against the rejection amounts to finality of those proceedings. The plaintiff cannot maintain a fresh suit merely on the ground that he has approached the Apex Court, especially when there is no stay of execution of the decree passed in HRC No.166/2013. The present suit is clearly an attempt to stall execution, without any cause of action. The plaint does not disclose any legally sustainable right to seek the declaration as prayed for. The Trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as it does not disclose the cause of action and is barred by law. The point framed for consideration is answered accordingly. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and pass the following: ORDER: i. Regular First Appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29069 RFA No. 118 of 2025 ii. The order passed by the Trial Court stands confirmed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 37