Dated this the 20th day of April 2009

Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) & JMFC., Devanahalli.

O.S. No.473/2008

PLAINTIFF                :                R. Govindappa,
Represented by his power of
Attorney holder Sri.B.M. Umesh
S/o. Mahadevappa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.295, 1st Floor,
Anandageri Extension, Hebbal,
Bengaluru-560 024

(By Sri. Sridhar Murthy K. Adv)


DEFENDANT/S        :                      Sri. Shankargouda Lingana
Gouda Patil,

(By  Sri. M.G. Kumar Law Firm)


This application is filed by the defendant U/o 7 rule 11 (a) and (d) r/w order 10 of CPC praying to reject the plaint and also dismiss the suit as not maintainable and barred by law.

2.        In the annexed affidavit, the attorney holder of the defendant has stated on oath that plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed the judgment passed in the previous suit O.S. No. 1417/2006. In the suit plaintiff had taken a specific stand that he has purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1982 and since he is residing in Mathikere he was not in possession or cultivation of the land. He had filed the suit seeking declaration of his title and possession against this defendant and the suit came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn), Devanahalli as barred by law and not maintainable. The said judgment has become final and binding on the plaintiff, but he has filed this suit again by cleverly creating an illusion of the alleged cause of action by suppressing the material fact. The present suit for permanent injunction is manifestly vexatious and meritless and he has played fraud on the court as well as abused the process of law. He has filed this second suit without any title, possession or valid cause of action and it is clear that it is manipulated and fraudulent attempt to sue wrongly. Suit is barred by res-judicata and the present litigation is bogus and frivolous and hence it is prayed to dismiss the suit on the costs.

3.        Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff, he has not filed any objections to the above application and moreover he remained absent continuously on all the hearing dates.

4.        By virtue of the above facts and circumstances of the case, points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1.        Whether plaint deserves to be rejected as prayed by the Defendant in I.A.No.IV filed U/o 7 rule 11 (a) & (d) r/w order 10 of CPC?
2.        What order?
5.   I have heard the arguments on both sides and also perused the material on
6.   My findings to the above points are as follows:
1.  In the Affirmative
2.   See final order

For the following;


7.        Point No. 1 : -On perusal of the material on record, it appears that plaintiff had filed suit for declaration against the defendant herein in O.S.No.1417/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Devanahalli. The defendant had filed similar application in that case and the same came to be allowed by order dated 22/9/2006. Copy of the said order is placed before the court and the operative portion reads thus:

“The plaint of the plaintiff is rejected under
the provisions of Order 7 rule 11 (a) and
Order 7 rule 11 (d) CPC, holding that the
suit is without cause of action and that it is
barred by provisions of Misc. Inams
Abolition Act, Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
Section 61 and 63 of Karnataka Land
Revenue Act.”
The present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff on 8/7/2008 i.e., after about 2 years from the date of the dismissal of the above suit and in this case he has sought the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the same property. The Hon’ble Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Devanahalli in the above order has discussed elaborately on the facts and circumstances of the case and also the question of limitation and the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and has come to a conclusion that the suit is without cause of action and also barred under the provisions of the various statutes. Plaintiff in this case has not filed the objections to the above application and also remained absent on all the hearing dates. By taking note of the said conduct and omission on the part of the plaintiff and also the above order by the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Devanahalli, I am constrained to hold that this suit is also barred and as such the plaint has to be rejected for want of cause of action. As such I answer point for consideration in the AFFIRMATIVE.

8.        Point No.2 : In view of the above discussion, reasons stated and findings given to point No.1, the  following is made.

I.A. No. IV filed by the defendant U/o 7 rule 11 (a) and (d) r/w order 10 of CPC is allowed and plaint is rejected for want of cause of action.

Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) & JMFC,