Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing production of documents in a suit already dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the First Appellate Court allowing production of mutation records under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. It affirmed the First Appellate Court’s order permitting the raising of additional grounds in the appeal. The civil appeals were accordingly disposed of.

The civil appeals arose from a long-standing land dispute related to a property in Honnakalasapura village, Anekal Taluk. On November 19, 1926, the Government of Mysore had granted the land in question to one Kurubettappa, the father of the first respondent. The property, comprising Survey No. 11/2 and measuring 3 acres and 39 guntas, was subsequently sold by a registered deed dated October 11, 1939, to Smt. Marakka, the grandmother of the appellants. Mutation was carried out in her name in 1939–40.

Also Read: “‘No Co-Mingling of Powers’: Punjab & Haryana HC Strikes Down RERA Order Allowing Adjudicator to Enforce Penalties”

Several proceedings were initiated over the years by the respondents or their predecessors challenging the 1939 sale deed. These included:

• O.S. No. 181 of 1975: A suit for declaration and injunction dismissed for default on January 28, 1978.

• Application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978: Allowed by the Assistant Commissioner on August 31, 1987.

• Appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner: Dismissed on November 24, 1988.

• Writ Petition No. 1254 of 1989: Allowed by the High Court on August 28, 1989, setting aside the above orders.

• Writ Appeal No. 1776 of 1989: Dismissed on October 23, 1989.

• O.S. No. 320 of 1989: A suit seeking declaration and injunction, dismissed by the Trial Court on March 28, 2002.

• Regular Appeal No. 98 of 2002: Dismissed by the First Appellate Court on July 10, 2007.

• RSA No. 2099 of 2007: Dismissed by the High Court on February 22, 2010.

• O.S. No. 91 of 2010: Suit for permanent injunction.

• RRT No. 87 of 2010: Application for mutation rejected by the Tehsildar on August 6, 2010.

• O.S. No. 275 of 2010: Suit seeking title declaration and injunction.

• Private complaint in 2010: Filed against the Tehsildar under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Section 217 IPC.

• O.S. No. 434 of 2011: Suit seeking declaration that the Tehsildar’s order was void.

In O.S. No. 434 of 2011, the appellants filed a written statement and an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) CPC arguing that no relief could be sought without cancellation of the 1939 sale deed. The Trial Court, by order dated October 28, 2013, accepted the plea and rejected the plaint.

During this period, the Tehsildar filed two criminal petitions, which were allowed by the High Court on November 29, 2013, resulting in quashing of the criminal proceedings. The respondent’s SLP(Crl.) No. 8569 of 2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on May 2, 2014, with the observation that any findings by the High Court would not affect civil proceedings.

On January 3, 2018, the Trial Court dismissed both O.S. No. 275/2010 and O.S. No. 434/2011. The respondent appealed these decisions through Regular Appeal Nos. 270 and 271 of 2020. In these appeals, respondent no. 1 filed:

• I.A. No. 2 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC seeking production of the Mutation Register extract for 1939–40 from the Tehsildar.

• I.A. No. 5 seeking leave to raise additional grounds in the appeal.

The First Appellate Court allowed both applications by a common order dated January 3, 2022. This was affirmed by the High Court. The appellants challenged both orders before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Order XI Rule 14 CPC and stated: “A 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.”

The Court recorded, “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.”

It was noted, “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 Court clarified the scope of appellate powers: “The First 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.”

On the use of documents in appellate proceedings, the judgment stated, “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.”

It also recorded, “The First Appellate Court was unnecessarily influenced by the observation made by this Court while dismissing Criminal Special Leave Petition.”

Regarding the impact of prior criminal proceedings, the Court stated: “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 Court concluded that: “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.”

On the second application, the Bench held: “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 Court issued the following directions:

“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.”

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against HDFC Manager: 'No Role in Auction Process' I 'Continuation of Proceedings Would Be Abuse of Process and Cause Miscarriage of Justice'

“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.”

“The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the above stated terms.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Anchit Singla, Advocate; Ms. Geetanjali Bedi, Advocate; Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Advocate; Ms. Anusha R., Advocate.

For the Respondent(s): Ms. Mary Vimala Bai P., Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Aparna Sharma, Advocate; Dr. Aparna Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Shivanna Gouda Doddamani, Advocate; Mr. Shivana Gouda Doddamani, Advocate.

Case Title: Sri Shrikanth N.S. & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 557

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 307–308 of 2025

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

[Read/Download order]