SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS.versusK. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR.

                 [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 Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil
      Procedure, 19081 and I.A. No. 5 seeking permission to raise additional
      grounds in the first appeal.
2.    The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 19.11.1926, the
      Government of Mysore granted the subject land to one Kurubettappa,
      father of respondent no. 1/plaintiff. This land bearing Survey No. 11/2
      admeasuring 3 acres 39 guntas situate at Honnakalasapura village,
      Anekal Taluk was purchased by one Smt. Marakka, grandmother
      of the appellants by a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1939 and
      mutation was carried out in her name in the year 1939-40. Thereafter,
      the following proceedings/suits were instituted by the respondents or
      her mother assailing the said transaction dated 11.10.1939:
      (i)    Original Suit No. 181 of 1975 was filed seeking relief of
             declaration and injunction against the appellants which came
             to be dismissed for default on 28.01.1978;
      (ii)   On 31.08.1987, the Assistant Commissioner allowed respondent
             no. 1’s mother’s application under Section 5 of the Karanataka



1    ‘CPC’
1546                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
          of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 seeking restoration of land in her
          favour;
    (iii) The appellants’ appeal against the above order dated 31.08.1987
          was dismissed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
          on 24.11.1988;
    (iv) The appellants preferred writ petition bearing WP No. 1254
         of 1989 before the High Court which came to be allowed on
         28.08.1989, setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant
         Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner;
    (v)   On 23.10.1989, Writ Appeal No. 1776 of 1989 preferred by
          respondent no. 1 was dismissed by the Division Bench affirming
          the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
          No. 1254 of 1989;
    (vi) On 10.11.1989, respondent no. 1 preferred O.S. No. 320 of
         1989 seeking declaration and injunction;
    (vii) The above suit was dismissed on 28.03.2002 by the Trial Court
          holding that the suit is barred by limitation;
    (viii) Regular Appeal No. 98 of 2002 preferred by respondent no.
           1 was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 10.07.2007;
    (ix) On 22.02.2010, Second Appeal bearing RSA No. 2099 of 2007
         preferred by respondent no. 1 was dismissed by the High Court;
    (x)   Immediately after rejection of the RSA, respondent no. 1
          preferred O.S. No. 91 of 2010 seeking permanent injunction
          against the property in question;
    (xi) On 06.08.2010, respondent no. 2/Tehsildar passed an order in
         RRT No. 87 of 2010 rejecting the prayers sought, observing
         that Mutation Register No. 5/1939-40 was a genuine entry;
    (xii) Respondent No. 1 preferred another suit in OS No. 275 of 2010
          seeking declaration of the title and declaration of the judgment
          as void ab initio as also for consequential relief of permanent
          injunction;
    (xiii) In the year 2010, respondent no. 1 preferred a private complaint
           against the Special Tehsildar for offences punishable under
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1547

          Sri Shrikanth NS & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr.


           Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under
           Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
     (xiv) Respondent No. 1 again preferred civil suit bearing O.S. No.434
           of 2011 seeking a declaration that the order dated 06.09.2010
           passed by respondent no. 2/Tehsildar in RRT No. 87 of 2010
           is illegal.
3.   When the matter stood thus, the appellants preferred their written
     statement along with an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a)
     & (d) of the CPC in O.S. No. 434 of 2011, the present suit. This
     application was on the plea that respondent no. 1 cannot seek relief
     in the plaint without having sought cancellation of sale deed dated
     11.10.1939. The Trial Court, vide its order dated 28.10.2013 allowed
     the appellants’ application and rejected the plaint. In the meanwhile,
     the Special Tehsildar had preferred Criminal Petition Nos. 4360 of
     2010 and 5272 of 2010 seeking quashment of criminal proceedings
     initiated by respondent no. 1 through the private complaint. The High
     Court allowed the petitions vide order dated 29.11.2013 and quashed
     the criminal proceedings against the Special Tehsildar.
4.   As against this order passed in criminal petitions preferred by the
     Special Tehsildar, respondent no. 1 preferred SLP(Crl.) No. 8569
     of 2014 which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated
     02.05.2014 with observation that, the observations, if any, made by
     the High Court on the merits of the controversy shall not prejudice
     the Civil Court in determining the validity of the sale deed which
     according to the petitioner (therein) has been fabricated.
5.   On 03.01.2018, the Trial Court dismissed both the suits (OS Nos.
     275/2010 & 434/2011). Challenging the order, respondent no. 1
     preferred Regular Appeal No. 5002 of 2018 renumbered as Regular
     Appeal No. 270 of 2020 in relation to the order passed in O.S. 275
     of 2010 and Regular Appeal No. 271 of 2020 in relation to the order
     passed in O.S. No. 434 of 2011. The subject I.A. No. 5 has been
     preferred by respondent no. 1 in these two regular appeals. The First
     Appellate Court allowed the application vide its order dated 03.01.2022
     which has been affirmed by the High Court under the impugned order.
6.   Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
7.   In his application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, respondent no. 1
     prayed for direction to the 4th defendant/Tehsildar to produce Mutation
1548                                                       [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     Register extract No. 5/1939-40 in respect of suit schedule property
     as prayed in I.A. No. 2 whereas in the other application (I.A. No. 5)
     he sought permission to raise additional grounds in pending regular
     appeal. While allowing the applications the Trial Court seems to be
     influenced by the observations made by this Court while dismissing
     the Special Leave Petition preferred by respondent no. 1 without
     appreciating that the said observation was made in Special Leave
     Petition (Criminal), in which the quashing order passed by the High
     Court in the petition preferred by the Special Tehsildar was under
     challenge. Since these proceedings were on the criminal side, this
     Court observed that the observations in the order shall not prejudice
     the Civil Court in determining the validity of the sale deed. The Trial
     Court further observed that the validity of the sale deed has to be
     adjudicated and for that the plaintiff has to be given opportunity to
     prove his case, therefore, if the Tehsildar is called upon to produce
     the Mutation Register, no hardship will be caused to anyone. The
     High Court has maintained this order.
8.   In our considered view, while allowing the application under Order XI
     Rule 14 of the CPC, the Trial Court has not adhered to the principles
     governing the disposal of the application under Order XI Rule 14 of
     the CPC. The said provision is reproduced herein for ready reference:
          “Order XI Rule 14. Production of documents.-It shall
          be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency
          of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto,
          upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession
          or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit,
          as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal
          with such documents, when produced, in such manner
          as shall appear just.”
9.   The plain reading of the provision would manifest that the same
     enables the Court to seek production of the documents during the
     pendency of the suit. In the case at hand, the suit preferred by
     respondent no.1 has already been dismissed by the Trial Court
     consequent upon the rejection of the plaint while allowing the
     appellants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The
     stage for leading the evidence is yet to arrive in the suit. In Regular
     Appeal pending before the First Appellate Court, the Appellate Court
     is not enjoined to decide the merits of the controversy. The First
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1549

             Sri Shrikanth NS & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr.


     Appellate Court will only examine the validity of the Trial Court’s
     order rejecting the plaint. For the said purpose, the Appellate Court
     will see to the contents of the plaint and nothing beyond. No other
     documents can be seen by the Trial Court or by the First Appellate
     Court without examining the issue concerning rejection of the plaint
     under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In our considered view, the First
     Appellate Court was unnecessarily influenced by the observation
     made by this Court while dismissing Criminal Special Leave Petition.
     This observation would only mean that the Civil Court proceedings
     shall be determined on its own merits. It nowhere enables the Civil
     Court (the First Appellate Court herein) to pass an order beyond
     the scope of Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC. The order passed by
     the 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; it deserves to be and is hereby set aside.
10. Insofar as the order passed in I.A. No. 5 allowing respondent no. 1
    to raise additional grounds in the Regular Appeal is concerned, we
    do not think that the same suffers from any illegality. The same is
    hereby affirmed.
11. The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the above stated terms.

     Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain