A KRISHNAPPA Vs. SHANAWAZ BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 161 of 1999 for specific performance, injunction and consequential reliefs before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pavagada. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, another suit in O.S. No. 39 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner/defendant for the very same relief. In the said suit, the defendants filed LA. No. 12 and LA. No. 13 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said applications. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the present suit is devoid of a cause of action and is barred by limitation. He contends that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Smt. Nalina, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no error committed by the Trial Court in passing the impugned order. She contends that by virtue of the order dated 21-2-2001, the present suit has been filed. Hence, she submits that no interference is called for.