LexSRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS. versus K. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1543 : 2025 INSC 557 Sri Shrikanth NS & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 307 of 2025) 23 April 2025 [Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of High Court order rejecting the writ petition of the appellants against the First Appellate Court’s common order allowing I.A. u/Ord.11 r.14 CPC and allowing I.A. seeking permission to raise additional grounds in the first appeal. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.11 r.14 and Ord.7 r.11 – Production of documents – Rejection of plaint – Matter as regards subject land – Purchasers-appellants and owners- respondents involved in multiple litigations arising from sale deed in respect of subject land, filing of civil suit seeking declaration of title, determination of validity of sale deed, application seeking rejection of plaint – Trial court dismissed suits – Respondents filed appeal against the order of the trial court – In these two appeals, respondents filed application u/Ord.11 r.14 CPC praying for direction to the Tehsildar to produce Mutation Register in respect of suit schedule property and application seeking permission to raise additional grounds in the first appeal – First appellate court allowed the applications – Writ petition u/Art.227 – High Court affirmed the order of first appellate court – Correctness: Held: While allowing the application u/Ord.11 r.14 trial court did not adhere to the principles governing the disposal of the application – Plain reading of the provision would manifest that same enables court to seek production of the documents during the pendency of the suit – Suit preferred by respondent no.1 has already been dismissed by the trial court consequent upon the * Author 1544 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports rejection of the plaint while allowing the appellants’ application u/ Ord.7 r.11 – Stage for leading the evidence is yet to arrive in the suit – In regular appeal pending before first appellate court, court is not enjoined to decide the merits of the controversy – First appellate court will only examine the validity of the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint – No documents other than plaint can be seen by trial court or first appellate court without examining the issue concerning rejection of the plaint u/Ord.7 r.11 – First appellate court as also trial court were unnecessarily influenced by the observation made by Supreme Court while dismissing criminal Special Leave Petition – This observation would only mean that civil court proceedings shall be determined on its own merits – It nowhere enables civil court /first appellate court to pass an order beyond the scope of Ord.11 r.14 – Order passed by trial court as affirmed by the High Court in the impugned order allowing the prayer made by respondent no.1 for production of Mutation Register is totally misconceived and suffers from an error of exercise of jurisdiction and is set aside – Order allowing respondent no.1 to raise additional grounds in regular appeal does not suffer from any illegality and is affirmed. [Paras 7-10] List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Karanataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Mutation register; Sale deed; Court to seek production of the documents; Raising additional grounds in regular appeal; Error of exercise of jurisdiction; Rejection of plaint. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 307 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2023 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 3092 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No. 308 of 2025 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1545 Sri Shrikanth NS & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Thakur, Anchit Singla, Ms. Geetanjali Bedi, Ranvijay Singh Chandel. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Mary Vimala Bai P., Ms. Mary Vimala Bai, Rajkamal Tanwar, Shivanagowda Dodamani, Ankit, Ms. Deepshikha. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. These appeals by the defendants in the suit would call in question the order passed by the High Court rejecting their writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which in turn was preferred against the First Appellate Court’s common order dated 03.01.2022 allowing I.A. No. 2 under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.