- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 34 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: IRINE D'SOUZA W/O JOHN D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT GREEN GARDEN, AMTHADY VILLAGE, MODANKAUP POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 219. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MURALIDHAR PAI. G S/O LATE G. VITTAL PAI, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO.11-10-1059, G H PAI COMPOUND, GOWRI MUTT STREET, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001. 2. G. SHALINI PAI W/O LAXMI NARAYANA BHAT, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT D NO.11-10-989/23, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 SUMUKHA HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, T T RAOD, OPP.GANESH PRASAD APARTMENT, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001. 3. THE SCDCC BANK REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, HAVING ITS OFFICE/BRANCH AT JANATHA BAZAR, HAMPANKATTA, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2023, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN OS.NO.37/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL.D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. FOR REJECTION OF PLIANT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.K.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Rakshith Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. Respondent/defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) to reject the plaint. 3. On contest, Trial Court passed an order which reads as under: “IA No.IV filed by the defendant No.3 is hereby partly allowed. Hereby directed the plaintiff to delete the prayer mentioned in VI (d) of the plaint which is against the defendant No.3.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 4. For ready reference provision of law as is found under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is culled out hereunder: “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; 1[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] 2[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] 3[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]” 5. Learned Trial Judge can reject the plaint on any one of the conditions enumerated supra. 6. But the Court has no power to strike of or direct the party to delete a prayer by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 7. In this regard, learned counsel for the revision petitioner gainfully places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sejal Glass Limited v. Navilan Merchants Private Limited reported in (2018) 11 SCC 780. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 8. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: “8. We are afraid that this is a misreading of the Madras High Court judgment. It was only on the peculiar facts of that case that want of Section 80 CPC against one defendant led to the rejection of the plaint as a whole, as no cause of action would remain against the other defendants. This cannot elevate itself into a rule of law, that once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. In all such cases, if the plaint survives against certain defendants and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11 will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial. 9. If only a portion of the plaint, as opposed to the plaint as a whole is to be struck out, Order 6 Rule 16 CPC would apply. Order 6 Rule 16 states as follows: “16. Striking out pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading— - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.” It is clear that Order 6 Rule 16 would not apply in the facts of the present case. There is no plea or averment to the effect that, as against the Directors, pleadings should be struck out on the ground that they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or that they may otherwise tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or that it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. 10. In contrast to the above provisions, which apply on a demurrer, the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2, read as follows: “2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.—(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to— (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.” The court is vested with a discretion under this order to deal with an issue of law, which it may try as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction of the court, or is a bar to the suit created for the time being in force. Obviously, this provision would apply after issues are struck i.e. after a written statement is filed. This provision again cannot come to the rescue of the learned counsel for the respondent.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 9. Therefore, per se the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is without the jurisdiction especially while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 10. Hence, impugned order needs to be set aside. However, if there is any scope for the Trial Court to reconsider the application based on the merits of the matter in view of the grounds urged by the revision petitioner, a fresh order may be passed on the application in accordance with law. 11. With that observations, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed. ii. O.S.No.37/2021 dated 19.11.2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada District is hereby set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46133 CRP No. 34 of 2023 iii. Trial Court is directed to consider the application afresh in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52