1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.53076 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.53075 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS COMMON IN BOTH THE PETITIONS BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE 'BADRIYA JUMMA MASJID & AL-MADRASTHUL BADRIYA' KUPPEPADAVU-574 162 KELLINGJARU VILLAGE MANGALURU TQ REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. MR.K.A.UMMERABBA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE L. ABUBAKKAR 3. MR.RAFEEQ ACHARIJORA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O BAVU BYARI 4. MR.K.S.ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O K.SHEKABBA 5. MR.ZOUHAR SAFWAAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O LATE AHMED BEARY MANIPALLA. HOSANAGARA 6. MR.ABDUL RAZAK AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ® 2 S/O MOIDEENABBA PADAVINANGADY 7. MR.ABDUL RAZAK @BLUE STAR RAZAK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE ANDAMAN BEARY HALINURU HOUSE 8. MR.D.P.HAMMABBA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE YUSUF PETITIONER NO.2 TO 8 ARE RESPECTIVELY EXISTING PRESIDENT, SECRETARY JOINT SECRETARY, 2ND JOINT SECRETARY AND REST ARE MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF ‘BADRIYA JUMMA MASJID & AL-MADRASTHUL BADRIYA KUPPEPADAVU-574 62 MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT 9. MOHAMMED HANIEF KHASIMI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MADRASA TEACHER AND KHATIB 'BADRIYA JUMMA MASJID & AL-MADRASTHUL BADRIYA' KUPPEPADAVU-574 162 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KUPPEPADAV, KELLINJARU VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR.SHEIK ABDULLA AGE 52 YEARS S/O MOIDE DOOR NO.1-51 3 2. MR.MOHAMMAD SHERIEF AGE 46 YEARS S/O MR. UMMARABBA DOOR NO.1-87/2 KADAKERI HOUSE 3. MRS.SEMINAZ AGE 28 YEARS W/O MR.LLYAS D/O N.K.KHADER DOOR NO.1-82 BADIYA MANZIL NADUPALLA 4. MR.ABDUL RAHIMAN AGE 34 YEARS DOOR NO.1-86/1 NADUPALLA 5. MR.ABDUL AZEEZ AGE 36 YEARS S/O SRI.IBRAHIM NADUPALLA NO.1 TO 5 RESIDENTS OF KELLINJARU VILLAGE KUPPEPADAVU, MANGALURU TALUK AND WHO ARE ALSO THE JAMAT MEMBERS AND BENEFICIARIES OF 'BADRIYA JUMMA MASJID & AL-MADRASTHUL BADRIYA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION NO.53076/2018 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VI FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC PASSED IN O.S.NO.1242/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. WRIT PETITION NO.53075/2018 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT 4 OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC PASSED IN O.S.NO.1242/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, DR. K.MANMADHA RAO, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV COMMON ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO) Petitioner before this Court, in Writ Petition No.53076 of 2018 connected with Writ Petition No.53075 of 2018, is seeking to quash the Order dated 22.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.6 filed under Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC and I.A No.5 filed Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC respectively, in O.S.No.1242/2018 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Mangaluru. 2. The Petitioners 1 to 9 were defendants No.1 to 9 and Respondents 1 to 5 were Plaintiffs No.1 to 5 before the trial Court. 3. The facts of the case are follows: The Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1242/2018 before the trial court for the declaration to declare the defendants are not 5 authorized or empowered to deny entry to the children of the plaintiffs and of the persons represented by the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule Madrasa and consequently restrain the defendants from obstructing the children of plaintiffs in any manner without following the due procedure under the law or the procedure under the bye law approved by the Karnataka State Board of Waqfs, Bangalore. Further seeking the declare to declare that the defendants are not authorized or empowered to make any changes or alterations to the name or names of the plaint schedule institutions and consequently restrain defendants from invoking, implementing or enforcing any name except the name Badriya Jumma Masjid and Al-Madrasthul Badriya as founded in the Certificate of Registration dated 23.12.1994 bearing No. KWB/REG/14/DKD/94-95 issued by the Karnataka State Board of Waqfs, Bangalore. 4. Further, it was also prayed for mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to hold General Body Meeting of the Plaint Schedule Institution to conduct election to elect a new Managing Committee (Mutawalli) to administer and manage the plaint schedule institutions and draft bye-laws to the plaint schedule institutions. 6 5. The Defendants, even before filing of the written statement, filed an application I.A.No.5 under Order VII Rule 10 read with read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC and contended that the territorial Jurisdiction over the matter lies with the jurisdictional Court at Mudabidri by relying upon the notifications dated 14.10.2004 and 27.11.2004 (Annexure-D). In the meanwhile Plaintiffs filed I.A. No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC, 6. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application I.A.No.5 filed by defendants and allowed I.A.No.6 filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached before this Court by way of the afore-numbered two writ petitions. 7. Heard Counsels for both the sides. 8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per the notifications dated 14.10.2004 and 27.11.2004, the court below does not itself get the territorial jurisdiction. It was further contended that the court below considering the Territorial Jurisdiction, ought to have returned the pliant. 7 9. It was also contended that, the reason given by the court below that the defendant No.1 is a registered Waqf Board at Mangalore and as such gets jurisdiction on the ground that the part of reliefs claimed under Section 20(c) of C.P.C is not correct and it was further contended that the other reasons have not been cogently assigned. 10. Another contention that was raised was the reason of the trial court that the causes of Action can be joined in certain cases shows that the court itself had doubts in its mind and therefore, needs interference of this court. 11. It was contended that the Court below is not justified in allowing the application especially when entire pleadings in the pliant are with regard to the Madrasa and Masjid located in the property situated in Kellinjaru Village which does not come under the jurisdiction of the Court below as per the notification. It was also contended that the Plaintiffs had intentionally sought an amendment to the plaint to change the name of the village which is within the jurisdiction of the Court. 12. It was further contended that the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no whisper about the property 8 comprised in Sy.No.88/2A2 and Sy.No.242/1B1B of Kellinjaru Village and Thenkayedapadavu village and no reliefs were claimed in respect of those properties and this being the case the plaintiffs had intentionally to avoid the return of the plaint filed an application to amend the pleadings. 13. It was also contended that the only amendment that was sought was to incorporate the properties situated at Thenkayedapadavu Village. There is no averment as to how the said properties are necessary for the disposal of suit and the Trial Court has confused with the contentions put forth and therefore, the Court has misled the application warranting interference of this Court. 14. On perusal of plaint pleadings, the certificate of registration dated 23.12.1994, other documents in I.A.No.5 and I.A.No.6 and the impugned order in I.A.No.5 filed under Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC, by the defendant for return of plaint and also I.A.No.6 filed under Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC by the plaintiff, it reveals that, they are executed at Mangaluru. This Court has a jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of CPC on the basis of place 9 where cause of action wholly or partly arises. The case of the plaintiff is that, plaint schedule institution has been registered in a particular name, i.e., Wakf Board, Bangalore, it has its office at Mangaluru as a part of plaint document No.1. By violating and by floating the statement, the defendant have made attempts to alter the name of plaint schedule Madarasa, in such an event the part of cause of action had aroused in Mangaluru. Hence, this court has jurisdiction under section 20(c) of CPC and further, it is the settled principle of law that, in a suit more than one cause of action can be joined. In case certain causes of action relating to certain reliefs are found to be outside the territorial jurisdiction of a court, either suit can be partly dismissed, in respect of cause of action which arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of a particular court or the plaint may be amended to strike off those relief which relate to such cause of action which is outside courts jurisdiction. Another important aspect is, a plaint need not be, in all cases, be returned in the inception itself. In this regard the plaintiff has relied on a decision reiterated in Raizada Topandas And Another vs. Gorakhram Gokalchand reported in AIR 1964 SC 1348 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder: 10 "The general principle which governs the question of jurisdiction at the inception of suits is as follows: The plaintiff chooses his forum and filed his suit. If he establishes the correctness of his facts he will get his relief from the forum chosen. If he frames his suit in a manner not warranted by the facts, and goes for his relief to a court which cannot grant him relief on the true facts, he will have his suit dismissed. presentation to the proper court, for the plaint, as framed, would not justify the other kind of court to grant him the relief. If it is found, on a trial on far as this issue of the merits SO jurisdiction goes that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are not true and the facts alleged by the defendants are true, that the and case is not to be cognizable by the court, there will be two kinds of orders to be passed. If the jurisdiction is only one relating to territorial limits or pecuniary limits, the plaint will be ordered returned for presentation to the proper court. If, on the other hand, it is found that, having regard to the nature of the suit, it is not cognizable by the class of court to which the court belongs, the plaintiffs suit will have to be dismissed in its entirety. AIR 1930 All 193 (FB) Approved." 15. On perusal of the material on record placed before this court and also the submissions made by the counsels, it is observed that the cause of action to file a suit arose in Kellinnjerau village of Mangaluru taluka which falls within the jurisdiction of Moodabidre civil Judge Court and the 11 same is relied the notification dated 27.11.2004 issued by the Government of Karnataka and moreover, the certificate of registration of the defendant No.1 which is issued by the Wakf Board reflects the properties of defendant No.1, in view of the same, the plaintiff/defendant filed this I.A to amend the plaint by adding “Tenkayedavapadavu” village and in between words “Kellinjerau” village and along with property details of certain immovable properties. 16. On perusal of the above material on record, the trial Court has considered and allowed I.A.No.6 as per provision contemplated under order VI Rule 17 of CPC and also observed that admittedly, the defendant has not filed any written statement and the trial has not commenced till date and considered the same with a larger interest of doing full and complete justice and in order to avoid multiplicity and to reach ends of justice, the amendment application is considered at the initial stage and further rejected the I.A.No.5 filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC for return of the plaint. While examining the I.A.No.5 in the event of allowing the I.A.No.6. In the event of allowing I.A.No.6, the trial Court will get territorial 12 jurisdiction under Sections 17, 18(1), 20(a) to 20(c) of CPC, when the part of plaint schedule property is situated in the jurisdiction of the Court, this Court has every jurisdiction to try the suit. On this ground alone, the I.A.No.5 under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, is rejected. In view of the same, the trial court has passed the reasoned order and the grounds raised by the petitioner is not sustainable under law. 17. In view of the above reasons, there are no merits to interfere in the Order dated 22.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.6 filed under Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC and I.A No.5 filed Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC, in O.S.No.1242/2018 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Mangaluru. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV