Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HANAMANTHAPPA AND ANR. versus CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA AND ORS.

Decided
3 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 846 · 1997 INSC 91
Also cited as
  • (1997) 9 SCC 688 (9 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1997 SC 1307 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, made in C.R.P. No 1650/96 on July 9, 1996.

p. 846, margin F

Admittedly, the respondents filed O.S. No. 158/94 in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund. On grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. Accordingly, after making necessary amendment to the plaint the respondents represented the suit, which came to be numbered as O.S. No. 10/91, in Civil Court at Dharwad. The petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10, CPCfor dismissal of the petition on the ground that the plaint was materially altered, without seeking permission for amendment of the plaint as required under Order VI Rule 17, CPC. The High Court dismissed the petition.

pp. 846–847, margin F

It is contended by Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, that since the petition had been filed with amended averments in the plaint, necessarily it must· be treated to be a fresh plaint and not one after representation to the proper court. We find no force in the contention. The object of Order VII, Rule 10-A is that the plaintiff, on return of the plaint, can either challenge in an appellate forum or represent to the court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In substance, it is a suit filed afresh subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the court fee as had rightly been pointed out by the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments which did not find place in the original plaint presented before the court of District Munsiff, Navalagund. It is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC. At best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and '.he matter can be proceeded with according to law. Under those circumstances, we do not think that there is any error of law committed by the High Court in giving the above direction.

p. 847, margin A

The -special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petition dismissed.

p. 847, margin D