T NARAYANA Vs. RANGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel representing Respondent No.10. The appeal coming on for admission, is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances. Therefore, the appeal is admitted to file.

(2.) The appellant was the plaintiff. The suit was for permanent injunction. The suit having been contested by some of the defendants, including the present Respondent No.10, who was Defendant No.2 therein, the court had framed issues and thereafter has, by the impugned judgment and decree, rejected the plaint as not maintainable and that it was vexatious in nature and hit by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC', for brevity). It is that which is sought to be challenged in the present appeal.

(3.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the court below could not have rejected the plaint at a stage when issues were framed and recording of evidence had commenced. The learned Counsel would draw attention to the application filed by defendant no.2 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It is pointed out that the claim in the application was that the plaintiff had filed an earlier suit in O.S.7028/1996 before the very court, for permanent injunction against five persons including one Rajamahal, whom the defendant no.2 is said to have represented as a power of attorney holder. It was stated that the plaintiff was claiming as the absolute owner of the property having purchased the property in execution proceedings arising out of a suit in O.S.7493/1995, on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore.