C.M. Meenakshi vs Archbishop Of Bangalore

2025 INSC 1363 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5015/2025

C.M. MEENAKSHI APPELLANT

VERSUS

ARCHBISHOP OF BANGALORE & OTHERS RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

We have heard learned senior counsel Sri Anand Grover for

the appellant and learned senior counsel and learned counsel for

the respondents-plaintiffs as well as the respondent– defendant in

O.S. No.26246 of 2023.

2. The aforesaid original suit was filed by the respondents-

plaintiffs seeking the following reliefs in respect of the said

property also:

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.28 16:09:17 IST Reason: 1

“WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the Plaintiffs:

a. To declare that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Suit Schedule Property and to direct the Defendants to handover the possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiffs.

b. To declare that judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.26051/2014 passed by XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall (CCH-29), at Bangalore in respect of the Suit Schedule Property is not binding on the Plaintiffs. c. to declare that (1). Sale deed dated 15/03/2014, registered as Document No.BMH-1-10627/2013-2014, stored in CD No.BMHD668, in the office of the Sub- registrar, Bommanahalli in favour of the Defendant No.1 and (2). Sale deed dated 13/11/2020, registered as Document No.BTM-1-02857/2020-21, stored in CD No.BTMD592, in the office of the Sub-registrar BTM Layout in favour of the Defendant No.10 & 11 in respect of the Suit Schedule Property are null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs and directing the concerned Sub- registrar to cancel/delete the entry of the said deed in its records.

d. To grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or their servants, legal representatives, administrators, assigns, power of attorney holders or anybody claiming under or through them from putting up any structure and demolishing existing building in the Suit Schedule Property.

e. To grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or their servants, legal representatives, administrators, assigns, power of attorney holders or anybody claiming under or through them from putting up any structure and demolishing existing building in the Suit Schedule Property and alienating or encumbering and change the nature of the Suit Schedule Property in whatsoever manner.

2 f. cost of the suit and grant such other reliefs as deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No.152/5, measuring 1 Acre 04 Guntas and 13 Guntas Kharab, situated at Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore along with school building consisting of 3 floors and bounded on:

East by : Land bearing Sy. No.152/6 and Road; West by : Land bearing Sy.No.152/3 and 152/16; North by : Land bearing Sy. No.152/15;

South by : Land bearing Sy. No.152/4.”

3. During the pendency of the said suit an application under

Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) was filed by defendant

Nos.1 to 8 in the said suit. By order dated 15.03.2024, the said

application (I.A.No.3) was allowed by 73rd Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (CCH-74), Bengaluru.

Consequently, the plaint was rejected.

4. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Regular First Appeal

No. 683 of 2024 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

By impugned judgment dated 27.06.2024, the Single Judge has

allowed the Regular First Appeal No. 683 of 2024 and

consequently, set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated

3 15.03.2024 in I.A. No.3 filed in O.S. No.26246 of 2023, seeking

rejection of the plaint. As a result, the suit has been restored on

the file of the Trial Court. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant at the

first instance submitted that the plaint which is produced as

Annexure P-12 does not disclose any cause of action. Secondly, it

was submitted that the plaint is barred in law inasmuch as the

reliefs sought in the plaint are hit by the law of limitation. Thirdly,

it was submitted that the respondents – plaintiffs had earlier filed

four suits which were either dismissed or withdrawn and therefore

the present suit being O.S. No.26246 of 2023 was not

maintainable owing to the application of the principle of res

judicata.

6. It was further submitted that the reliefs sought by the

respondents-plaintiffs herein could have been sought in the earlier

plaints that were filed. Hence, the suit is also barred by the

application of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

7. In the above circumstances, it was contended by learned

senior counsel that the High Court was not right in setting aside

the order dated 15.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.3 in the suit,

4 thereby allowing the regular first appeal and dismissing the

application filed for rejection of the plaint.

8. We have considered each of the submissions made by

learned senior counsel.

9. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents-

plaintiffs contended that there is no merit in this appeal.

Assuming but not conceding that any of the aforesaid contentions

arise in the instant suit, they are all matter of trial. Therefore, the

application could not have been allowed by the Trial Court at the

threshold thereby resulting in dismissal of the suit. Learned

senior counsel submitted that the High Court has rightly analyzed

the reliefs sought for by the respondents-plaintiffs and the

approach that has to be made in the case of consideration of an

application for rejection of the plaint and has reasoned that this

was not a case where the plaint could have been rejected.

Consequently, the plaint has been restored on the file of the Trial

Court by rejecting the application filed by the defendants seeking

rejection of the plaint. It was contended that there is no merit in

this appeal.

5

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent

No.11/defendant No.11 submitted that he supports the arguments

of the learned senior counsel for the appellant insofar as the

consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a)

and (d) only is concerned.

11. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 to 8 also submitted

that he supports the contentions of the learned senior counsel for

the appellant.

12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent

No.11/defendant No.11 submitted that the Trial Court should not

construe the observations of the High Court as meaning that the

Trial Court should proceed with the case on merits, thereby

implying that the issues concerning limitation, res judicata and

those arising under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC ought not to be

considered at all.

13. We do not think that this is an implication of the judgment

of the High Court, nor can such a construction be given to its

observations. All that the High Court meant was that the suit is

restored on the file of the Trial Court and that it has to be decided

6 in accordance with law, which would include all the above issues

apart from the issues on the merits of the case.

14. In this regard, we place reliance on the judgments of this

Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal

Kamat, (2021) 9 SCC 99 and Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd.

vs. Central Bank of India, (2020) 17 SCC 260.

15. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

16. It is needless to observe that with the cooperation of both

sides, the Trial Court shall endeavour to expedite the disposal of

the suit.

Parties to bear their respective costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

……………………………J. (R. MAHADEVAN) NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 20, 2025.

7

ITEM NO.123 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5015/2025

C.M. MEENAKSHI Appellant(s)

VERSUS

ARCHBISHOP OF BANGALORE & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 89415/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 296548/2024 - EX-PARTE STAY IA No. 195634/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 77442/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 195635/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 102527/2025 - FILING ADDL. GROUND OF APPEAL IA No. 191547/2025 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER IA No. 77441/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 202694/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 201273/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 20-11-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, AOR Mr. Keshav M. Datar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sanbha Rumnong, Adv.

Ms. Lija Merin John, Adv.

Mr. M.f.philip, Adv.

Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR

Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. S.k Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv.

M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR

Mr. A N Venugopala Gowda, Sr. Adv. Mrs. T S Shanthi, Adv.

8 Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Sneha Irine Kachhap, Adv. Mr. Amith J, Adv.

Mr. P. Srinivasan, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the non-

reportable judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

9