- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100086 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: 1. BHIMANAGOUDA S/O VEERABHADRAGOUDA AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HERUR VILLAGE, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. 2. SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O VIRUPAKSHA REDDY AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE C/O. VIRUPAKSHA REDDY ADVOCATE HOUSE NO. 4-9-28/4-9-22 R/O. CHALUWADI STREET, GANGAVATI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.H. MITTALKOD, ADV) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA A CORPORATE BODY (STATE BANK OF MYSORE) ACQUIRED UNDER SUB 2 OF SECTION 35 OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955 AND HAVING ITS CORPORATE CENTER AT NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI & HAVING BRANCHES AMONG OTHER PLACES, A BRANCH AT GANGAVATHI REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH BAGODI SQUARE BUILDING, RAICHUR ROAD, GANGAVATHI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.23 16:29:57 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 DIST. KOPPAL-583231. 2. VIRUPANNA S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. CISF CONSTABLE R/O. CHALUWADI STREET GANGAVATI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. 3. SHAIKSHAVALI S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRI, R/O. WARD NO.4, CMC, MURAHARI CAMP, BHAVANI BAKERY JULYNAGAR, AT. GANGAVATI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED; R3-ABATED) THIS MSA IS FILED U/SEC.104 READ WITH 43 RULE 1 (4) OF CPC., PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2022 PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, SITTING AT GANGAVATHI, IN RA NO.23/2020 BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO. VII DATED 23.10.2020 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI IN OS NO.87/2017, SO FAR AS THESE APPELLANTS ARE CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2022 passed in Regular Appeal No.23 of 2020 by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi, and to confirm the order passed on IA No.VII dated 23.10.2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gangavathi in Original Suit No.87 of 2017, insofar as the present appellants are concerned. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.3 and 4; respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were defendants Nos.1 and 2. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are, as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 4. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.87 of 2017 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gangavathi for the recovery of money against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d)1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing the objections and contended that, the Bank has stopped the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the suit is maintainable, and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the application with heavy costs. 6. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed I.A. No.VII filed by the Defendant No.3 vide order dated 23.10.2020. Consequently, the 1 11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) x x x (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.23 of 2020. The First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 20.06.2022 set aside the order on I.A. No.VII, and consequently, rejected I.A. No.VII, and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh disposal, without being influenced by any observations made in the judgment therein. 7. Defendant Nos.3 and 4, aggrieved by the judgment passed in Regular Appeal No.23 of 2020, filed this Miscellaneous Second Appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for defendant Nos.3 and 4. 9. The learned counsel for defendant Nos.3 and 4 submits that the plaintiff had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’). Hence, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff, and therefore, the suit is barred under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, he submits that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint by allowing I.A.No.VII. The First Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A. No.VII. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant Nos.3 and 4. 11. There is no dispute that the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money against defendants and the Manager was examined as PW-1 on behalf of the plaintiff bank. When the case was posted for further evidence of the plaintiff, defendant No.3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 Procedure Code, 1908 on the ground that the suit is barred under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 12. The Trial Court, while rejecting the plaint, has failed to consider that the Court must see the contents of the plaint and not the contentions raised by the defendants. 13. The First Appellate Court, placing reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Sonubai Bhimaray Ingale v. Smt. Sushila and Others reported in AIR 2018 KAR 105: (2018) 3 KCCR 2816, wherein it was held at para 14 as follows: “14. It is apparent that the trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that O.S.No.84/1997 is pending before the same Court relating to the very same properties, based on the defence taken in the written statement filed by the defendants. Filing of O.S.No.84/1997 by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 against defendant No.1 cannot be a ground - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC on the premise that plaintiffs herein have not disclosed the cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. The plaint can be rejected on any one of the grounds enumerated in Clauses (a) to (f) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC but no plaint can be rejected on the basis of the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement. It is well established rule of law that while rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only the plaint averments to be looked into, and nothing else. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Liver Pool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd., Vs. M.V.Sea Success I and another reported in [(2004) 9 SCC 512)] as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mayar (H.K) Ltd., and Ors. Vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 Express & Ors reported in (AIR 2006 SC 1828).” (emphasis supplied) 14. In the instant case, the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the plaint only on the ground stated in the application filed by defendant No.3, without going through the contents of the plaint, and the First Appellate Court has re-appreciated the entire material on record, and has rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable, and set aside the order passed on I.A. No.VII, and has rightly rejected I.A. No.VII. 15. In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9960 MSA No. 100086 of 2022 ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The office is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28