- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.276 OF 2014 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI ASHRAF A.R. BUHARI DIRECTOR ETA KARNATAKA ESTATES LTD UNIT NO.501 AND 502 5TH FLOOR, FRONT WING NORTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTRE NO.47, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560042 …PETITIONER (BY SRI AMIT MANDGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT RAJAMMA W/O LATE K.NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD R2 AND R3 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 2. MS.C.N.GEETHA D/O LATE K.NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. MR.C.N.SHASHISEKAR S/O LATE K.NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR.V.RAMAMURTHY, S/O MR.K.VENKATESHVALU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A 9/2, PEMBAIAH BLOCK, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560006 4. BINNY LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING REGD. OFFICE AT 106, ARMENIAN STREET CHENNAI-60000001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.2024, R1 IS DEAD, R2 AND R3 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.4.2014 PASSED IN O.S.594/2012 ON THE FILE OF XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING IA NO.3 FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF CPC AND UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC R/W SECTION 26 AND 32 OF SICK INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1985 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Amit Mandgi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G.K.Shivaprakash, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 2. This revision petition is filed by the defendant No.2 challenging the validity of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in O.S No.594/2012 on the file of XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8) whereby I.A. No.3 filed by the second defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be dismissed by Order dated 30.04.2014. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: Respondent Nos.2 and 3 viz., C.N.Geetha and C.N. Shashishekar, being the daughter and son of Smt. Rajamma/ respondent No.1 together filed the aforementioned suit for specific enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 20.12.1973 in respect of the following property hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’. “All that piece and parcel of property bearing Municipal No.1 and 2, Hosakere Road and part of Sy.No.10/1, situated at Bhogenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore, out of which a portion including septic tank, measuring East to West 165+260/2 ft. and North to South: 108+205/2 ft. and total measuring 32,865 sq.feet, and bounded on the: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 East by: Binny Work people stores and Municipal No.1 & 2, West by: B.M.W and other L.C.H.S.Ltd., land, North by: Vacant land retained by B.M. and South by: Road formed by B.M.W and OLLHS Ltd.,” 4. Smt.Rajamma/first plaintiff died and her legal representatives viz., plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 continued the suit. 5. In the plaint, plaintiffs contended that first defendant being the absolute owner of the suit property, agreed to sell portion of the suit property by entering into an agreement on 20.12.1973 in favour of Sri K.Nanjundaiah, who is the husband of first plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. 6. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that a sum of Rs.39,000/- was paid by Sri K.Nanjundaih and possession of the suit property was delivered to K.Nanjundaiah by the first defendant. 7. The plaintiffs further contended that Nanjundaiah was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property until his death. Thereafter, it is his legal representatives viz., Rajamma, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 C.N.Geetha and C.N.Shashishekar (plaintiffs) were in possession of the suit property. 8. It is further contented by the plaintiffs that Nanjundaiah was an illiterate person and did not had the worldly knowledge regarding obtaining the sale deed in respect of the suit property. 9. It is further contented by the plaintiffs that when the matter stood thus, in the month of November 2011, plaintiffs noticed that second defendant is trying to trespass into the suit property and tried to demolish the compound on one side of the suit property. Immediately plaintiffs approached the jurisdictional police. But police advised them to approach the Civil Court. 10. A legal notice was caused on 22.12.2011 to the first defendant calling upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed. 11. It is also submitted by the plaintiffs that reply notice was issued by the first defendant with false material facts. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 12. Plaintiffs further contended that they were in lawful possession of the suit property and cause of action to file the suit arose in the month of November 2011 and on 22.12.2011 when the legal notice was caused. 13. Plaintiffs prayed in the suit as under: “WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff: - (a) To pass a Judgment and decree directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule property. (b) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their legal heirs, henchmen, agents or anybody claiming on behalf of them not to interference of the plaintiff's suit schedule property in any manner. (c) To grant such other relief/s this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case, including cost of the suit, in the interest of justice and equity.” 14. Pursuant of suit summons, second defendant appeared before the Court and filed written statement denying the plaint averments, so also, furnished the details of the present nature - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 of the suit property and how second defendant has got interest in the suit property. 15. The second defendant also mentioned about the proceedings before the Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction (‘BIFR’ for short) and Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (‘AAIFR’ for short). 16. Second Defendant also brought to the notice of the Court that Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 26 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (‘SICA’ for short). 17. Further, second defendant contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is totally taken away by BIFR and therefore, suit is to be dismissed. 18. Second defendant also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the suit contending that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 19. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing detailed written objection through the Special Power of Attorney holder. 20. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and noted that by virtue of the agreement dated 20.12.1973, the suit is maintainable. 21. Learned Trial Judge also noted that suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction can be filed when there is no time limit fixed in the agreement, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah v. Anton Elis Farel, (2006) 3 SCC 634 and dismissed the application filed by the second defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 22. Validity of the same is called in question in this revision petition on the following grounds:  “that the Hon'ble Trial Court failed to appreciate that the entire case of the 1st to 3rd respondents was based on the alleged Agreement dt.20-12- 1973, said to have been executed by K.V.R.Balakrishnan as Director of the 4th - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 respondent, but had failed to produce the Power of Attorney executed by the 4th respondent-company in favour of the said KVR Balakrishnan.  The Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the Power of Attorney in favour of on Mr.KVR Balakrishnan was the primary document which the alleged cause of action of the 1st to 3rd respondents was based; failure to produce the same rendered the plaint liable to be rejected, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust And The Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706.  That the Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the petitioner had produced the registered Power of Attorney dt.03-11-1969 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of inter- alia, Mr.KVR Balakrishnan, which clearly demonstrated to that the Power conferred thereunder was only present the documents executed by the 4th respondent and no power to execute documents on behalf of was conferred on the said 4th respondent Mr.KVR Balakrishnan.  That the Hon'ble Trial Court ought of attorney, being to have appreciated that in view of the powers conferred under the registered Power confined only to presenting and not execution - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 document, the alleged agreement said to have been executed by the said Mr.KVR Balakrishnan as Director (which he never was) could not bind the 4th respondent.  That the Hon'ble Trial Court erred in accepting the contention of the 1st to 3rd mere respondents payment of entire sale consideration implied readiness and willingness to perform contract the same being in direct contradiction to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1035 in J.Samuel Vs. Gattu Mahesh regarding the mandatory nature of the averment required under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.  That the Hon'ble Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit being one for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed respect of an alleged agreement of the year 1973 was hopelessly barred by limitation.  The Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have appreciated that in the reply notice dt.29-12-2011 to the notice dt. 22-12-2011 issued on behalf of the 1st to 3rd respondents, the petitioner had specifically referred to the notice dt.10-4-2006 issued by late Nanjundiah and the reply dt.7-6-2006 denying his claims and the total silence in the plaint regarding the same was deliberate and calculated to somehow overcome the issue of limitation. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014  The Hon'ble Trial Court failed to apply the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Hegde & Co in 2007 AIR SCW 3456, wherein the Apex Court held that a plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, which would include the law of limitation.  That the Hon'ble Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Act being a special enactment, overrides the provisions of all other enactments and the property having vested in the petitioner pursuant to the Scheme framed by the BIFR, it was open to 1st and 3rd respondents to challenge the same and as also held by the Hon'ble Supreme not Court in Raheja Universal Ltd. Vs. NRC Ltd & Others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 148.  That the Hon'ble Trial Court totally failed to appreciate that the provisions of sections 26 and 32 of the Act clearly ousted the jurisdiction matters/Orders of the Civil Courts in dealing with of the BIFR/AAFR.  The Hon'ble Trial Court failed to apply decision of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No:9771/13 in the case of Jagadish Singh Vs. Hiralal & Otrs wherein the Apex Court whilst dealing - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 with the provisions of sections 34 and the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act), which are in para materia with the provisions of sections 26 and 32 of the Act held that it was only the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal that was entitled to deal with any matters arising under the Securitisation Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is completely barred.  That the Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the instant suit fell squarely within the ambit of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereunder the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try suits whose cognisance no in the either expressly or impliedly barred, as instant case by virtue of sections 26 and 32 of the Act.  That the Order of the Hon'ble Trial Court even a mere completely overlooks the fact that perusal of the material and documents already before it clearly pointed to the suit itself being based on created and fabricated documents. As such, the 1st and 3rd respondents were clearly not entitled to any relief from the Courts, as also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (deceased) Vs. Jajannath (Deceased) reported in AIR 1994 SC 853. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014  That the Hon'ble Trial Court erred in holding that the question of maintainability of the suit has to be considered only after framing of issues, totally ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in AIR 1986 SC 1253 wherein the Apex court has clearly held that the power under Order VII Rule 11 can be exercised by the Courts at any time.” 23. Sri Amit Mandgi, learned counsel for the Revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contented that under the provisions of Sections 22, 26 and 32 of the SICA, any suit or proceedings pending before the Civil Court would get automatically stayed when the sick industry approaches the BIFR and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to further proceed with the suit. The only remedy for the parties is to file necessary claim before the BIFR. 24. He would further contend that when there is a specific bar under the special statute, the special Act should prevail over the inherent jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has not been considered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned Order resulting in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 25. Per contra, Sri Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that a contract to enforce the rights of the parties under the agreement to sell dated 20.12.1973, the Civil Court retains the jurisdiction irrespective of first defendant being termed as a sick industry and, BIFR has no jurisdiction to decide the private rights of the first defendant and the plaintiffs. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 26. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 27. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that the first defendant did not deny the agreement with Nanjundaiah who is the husband of first plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. 28. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that they were let into the possession of the suit property on the day of agreement itself. It is also contended that Nanjundaiah being - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 an uneducated person, did not seek for specific enforcement of the contract under the agreement to sell. In the nutshell, the plaintiffs are pleading that they are in possession of the suit property by virtue of part performance of the contract under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, the suit needs to be decided on merits. 29. Even though there is some force in the said contentions urged on behalf of the plaintiffs, taking note of the special provisions of SICA and since the matter is pending before BIFR, such a contention cannot be countenanced in law. 30. In order to appreciate the said position of law, it is necessary for this Court to cull out Section 26 of SICA, which reads as under: “26. Bar of jurisdiction No order passed or proposal made under this Act shall be appealable except as provided therein and no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the appellate authority or the Board is empowered by, or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.” - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 31. On bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is crystal clear that all suits and proceedings before the Civil Court gets automatically stayed whenever a sick industry approaches the BIFR. 32. According to the scheme that has been evolved and viability of the sick industry was considered by the BIFR whereby all the assets and liabilities of the first defendant is ordered to be taken over by the second defendant. 33. It is pertinent to note that when this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the Civil Court, the Civil Court ought to have stayed the proceedings and relegated the plaintiffs to the BIFR for working out the remedy. 34. The Civil Court could have done it suo motu or on the application of the plaintiffs. When the second defendant has specifically stated about the pendency of the BIFR proceedings, it was the duty of the plaintiffs to seek leave of the Court to lay a claim before the BIFR. No such effort is made by the plaintiffs. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 35. Instead, plaintiffs opposed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 36. Learned Trial Judge not noticing the effect of a special enactment vis-a-vis the ordinary jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wrongly dismissed the application filed by the second defendant. 37. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: 11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.“ - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 38. By virtue of the special enactment as culled out supra, when there is a clear bar to the Civil Court to entertain the suit further, the only remedy for the Trial Court was to reject the plaint or at least return the plaint with permission for the plaintiffs to make necessary claim before the BIFR. 39. Instead dismissing the application by supplying inappropriate reasons as is found in the impugned Order, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the powers vested in this Court in the revisional jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the revision petitioner and set aside the impugned order. 40. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned Order dated 30.04.2014 passed on IA No3 in O.S.No.594/2012 on the file of the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently plaint is rejected. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43012 CRP No. 276 of 2014 (iv) However, plaintiffs are reserved liberty to take recourse to law in respect of the agreement to sell dated 20.12.1973 before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 49