Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
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
J U D G M E N T
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
rd
application (I.A.No.3) was allowed by 73 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
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
J U D G M E N T
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
rd
application (I.A.No.3) was allowed by 73 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