M. BABUREDDY Vs. V. KAMAL RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court, challenging the order dtd. 28/2/2015 passed in O.S.No.154/2012 on the file of the XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

(2.) The petitioner is defendant No.18 and respondent No.1 is plaintiff and other respondents are codefendants. The respondent No.1 has filed O.S.No.154/2012 for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from evicting, dispossessing and taking forcible possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner-defendant No.18 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC to reject the plaint, contending that the injunction suit is not maintainable and plaintiff-respondent No.1 cannot seek relief of permanent injunction without seeking declaration of title. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The trial Court, by its detailed order has rejected the application, recording the reasons that plaintiffs have produced registered sale deeds, on the basis of which, they are in the possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are claiming the relief of permanent injunction on the basis of possessory title along with registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. The settled position of law is that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC only the plaint averments have to be looked into. The trial Court, looking into the plaint averments has come to the conclusion that the application filed by defendant No.18 are devoid of merits and petitioner-defendant No.18 has not made out prima facie case to allow the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. Moreover, this Court in an identical revision petition filed by the petitioner in CRP No.259/2016 has affirmed the order passed by the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.