- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8274 MFA No. 5661 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5661 OF 2018 (CPC-) BETWEEN: SRI. DATTA PRAMOD N. GOLLAHALLI SON OF G.R. NAGARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. G.R.NAGARAJAN, R/AT NO.G-10, SSD PEARLS, 2ND CROSS, UDHAYANAGAR, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 061. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: SWATHI GANDUR SURESH BABU DAUGHTER OF G.V. SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.103, 6TH CROSS, KRISHNA GARDENS, PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V. R. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(a) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:28/06/2018, PASSED ON IA.8 IN O.S.NO.5049/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-27), BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA.8 FILED BY DEFENDANT U/O. VII R 11 AND 10 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8274 MFA No. 5661 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant for setting aside the order of the Trial Court for return of the plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 & 10 read with Sections 9 and 151 of CPC in O.S.No.5049/2012. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties are retained for the sake convenience. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant to declare the plaintiff as absolute of 'A' and 'B' schedule property and it is alleged that though both the properties were purchased in the joint name of the plaintiff and defendant but he is the absolute owner. Therefore, prayed for decreeing the suit. The defendant appeared and filed an interlocutory application for rejection of the plaint or return of the plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 & 10 read with Sections 9 and 151 of CPC holding that the plaintiff and defendant are - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8274 MFA No. 5661 of 2018 husband and wife, and there was matrimonial dispute between them in the divorce and other cases. Therefore, as per section 7B of the Family Court Act, the Family Court can get exclusive jurisdiction for trying the suit. Therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Hence prayed for rejection/return of the plaint. 5. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court passed an order allowing the interlocutory application and ordered to return the plaint with direction to file before the Family Court, Bengaluru. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this court. 6. During the pendency of the court, both the counsel submits, subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the parties have entered into compromise between the Family Court, and the divorce has been granted. All the disputes were settled, except this case. Even the respondent/wife said to be ready to release the right over the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, as per the undertaking given by her during the compromise in the Mediation Centre. However, appellant counsel submits, the respondent was directed to execute the release deed in favour of the plaintiff. However, this appeal is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8274 MFA No. 5661 of 2018 not based upon a decree but only in respect of interlocutory application, therefore, this court cannot issue direction to any of the parties. In case, if parties fail to comply the order, the parties cannot execute the order. Such being the case, it is necessary for the appellant to file the suit before the Family Court, as per the direction of the Civil Court and also the defendant can also appear and both can file joint compromise application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and compounded the same and finally the Family Court can decree the same and then it is executable as per the law. Such being the case, this court cannot allow the appeal. Hence, appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellant is granted liberty to approach the family court and re-present the suit. The time consumed herein is hereby exempted. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55_CT:SK