IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE

IN

O.S.No.: /2014

BETWEEN
1. Sri. Jayanth Devkumar,
S/o. J.Devkumar, Age 22 years,
R/o. No.6, 1
st
Main Road,
G.M.Palya, Thippasandra Post,
Bangalore 560075.

2. Sri. Nithyananda.S.G,
S/o.Dr.C.S.Gururaj, Age 22 years,
R/o.No. 40, 4
th
A Cross,
5
th
Main, Shankarnagar,
Bangalore 560096.

3. Sri. Raunaq.K.V,
S/o. Vishwanath, Age 22 years,
R/o. No. 859, Ashiana,
13
th
Main, Vinayaka Layout,
Nagarbhavi II Stage, Bangalore 560072.
(All Students of K.L.E Societys Law College,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore 10) PLAINTIFFS

AND
1. THE PRINCIPAL,
BMS College of Law
Mallikarjuna Temple Street,
N.R.Colony, Bangalore 560019.

2. Asst. Prof. K. Mayilsamy,
Organising Secretary and Contact Person
BMS College of Law
Mallikarjuna Temple Street,
N.R.Colony, Bangalore 560019. DEFENDANTS


PLAINT UNDER SECTION 26 R/w. ORDER VII RULE I OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908


1. That, the address of the Plaintiffs for the purpose of issue of
summons, notice etc., from this Honble Court is as stated in the
Cause Title. The Plaintiffs may also be served through their counsel
Shri. Chaitanya. S. G, from M/s. Chaitanya.S.G & Associates,
No.88/C, III Floor (Above Reliance Fresh), 12
th
Cross, Mahalakshmi
Layout Main Road, Bangalore- 560 086.

2. That, on 28.01.2014, the first Defendant had sent an invitation to
K.L.E Societys Law College, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, requesting them
to participate in the B M Sreenivasaiah Memorial National Moot Court
Competition 2014 that was to be held at their law college premises
from 21st - 23rd March, 2014. In furtherance of the said invitation,
the Defendants also had posted an open invitation in their website
inviting all law college students to participate in the said Competition.
The brochure inviting K.L.E.s Law College and the open invitation in
the website of the Defendants is produced as DOCUMENT No.1 and 2
respectively. The eligibility to participate in the competition was open
for law students currently pursuing their Bachelor's degree in law i.e.
3 Year LL.B. or 5 Year LL.B. Programme.

3. That, accordingly, the Plaintiffs saw the open invitation given by the
Defendants in their website and subsequently made a representation
to K.L.E Societys Law College seeking permission to participate in the
said Competition. The Plaintiffs College approved the participation of
the Plaintiffs in the moot court competition. The approval was based
on their meritorious performance and further the K.L.Es Law College
also sponsored them in order to participate in the said competition.
The copy of the Registration form is produced as DOCUMENT No.3.

4. That, the Plaintiffs in accordance with the rules and regulations of the
competition laid out in the brochure (hereinafter referred to as The
Rules) which was sent by the Defendants, sent a Bankers Cheque
Dated 17.12.2014, in favor of the First Defendant, bearing No. 289853
drawn in State Bank of India for an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees
One Thousand Five Hundred only) and consented to participate in the
said competition which was organized and conducted by the
Defendants. The said demand draft was procured by the 2
nd
Plaintiff.
The Copy of the Demand Draft and the challan from the bank is
produced as DOCUMENT No. 4 and 5 respectively.

5. That, the Plaintiffs submit that, in furtherance with The Rules of the
competition, sent a soft copy of the memorials for the competition on
12.03.2014 at 9:12 p.m. which was duly acknowledged by the second
Defendant on 14.03.2014 at 6:00 a.m. The prescribed number of hard
copies as per the rules of the competition was submitted in person by
the Plaintiffs on 13.03.2014. The copy of the e-mail sent by the
Plaintiffs and the acknowledgment received is produced as
DOCUMENT 6 and 7 respectively.

6. That, on 21.03.2014 the Plaintiffs registered themselves for the
competition held at BMS Engineering College Auditorium at 4:00p.m.
as per the schedule given by the Defendants..

7. That, the Plaintiffs bearing Team Code 17, participated in the
Preliminary Round scheduled on 22.03.2014 and after performing in
both the legs of the Preliminary Round in the said competition
qualified to the Quarter Finals which was conducted on the same day
and scored highest points among all 22 teams which participated.

8. That, the Plaintiffs qualified to the Semi-Final Round which was
scheduled on 23.03.2014. The Plaintiffs moot presentation was
conducted in Court Hall-01 against Team Code 21 and they scored
271 points against their opponent team who scored 240 points and
convincingly won with a difference of 31 points. The Certified copy of
the score sheet issued by the Defendants is produced as DOCUMENT
NO. 8.

9. That, it is submitted that as per The Rules vide. Page 7, Rule VII (C)
two teams were to advance to the finals on KNOCK OUT basis.
Pursuant to The Rules, the Plaintiffs were entitled to a place in the
Finals of the Competition as they had won in their Semi-Final round
in their respective court hall.

10. That, the Plaintiffs were deprived of their right to perform in the finals
by the Defendants breaching the accepted Rules related to the Semi-
Finals. The illogical application of the rules by the first Defendant
resulted in, both the teams who performed in the same Court Hall
(Court Hall No. 02), reached the Finals which was ridiculous.

11. That the Plaintiffs immediately after the announcement of the results
raised an objection for their disqualification from participating in the
Finals. The first Defendant adamantly persisted that the rules of
Knock Out should be applied as per his misconception. Subsequently,
as requested by the first Defendant, the Plaintiffs presented their
written objections to be placed before a Grievance Committee which
was constituted to address the same on 23.03.2014.

12. That on having submitted the written objections the Plaintiffs,
alarmingly were shocked to see that the Grievance Committee
comprised of a sole person who was none other than the first
Defendant, who had earlier refused to accede to the request made by
the Plaintiffs. That, the first Defendant before even addressing the
grievance of the Plaintiffs and before passing an order on the
grievance petition; in a hurriedly manner, conducted the draw of lots
for the finals and eventually, conducted the final round of the
competition and proceeded to announce the final results of the
competition.

13. That, the Plaintiff when they asked for explanation, the first
Defendant arbitrarily gave an answer that he was within his right to
interpret the Rules and informed that the term Knock Out meant
that he could knock out the team based on cumulative marks. The
Plaintiffs also showed the first Defendant a copy of the Oxford
Dictionary and tried to explain to him the meaning of the term Knock
Out and also tried to explain the normal procedure which was being
followed nationally and internationally. The First Defendant without
even giving a ear to the Plaintiffs stood his ground and remarked that
he was not bound to run the competition based on normal practice
and procedures followed by other institutions.

14. That on 27
th
of March 2014, after a lapse of 5 days, the Defendants
prepared the report of the Grievance Committee constituted in respect
of the competition. According to the report prepared by the
Defendants, it is stated that as per rules framed in respect of the
Preliminary Rounds, Quarter Final and Semi Finals Round, the
selection was purely made on the basis of the cumulative marks
scored in oral presentation as well as in written submission by each
team and thereby the Plaintiffs having stood third, as per the total
marks scored both in oral presentation as well as in written
submission, could not be selected to advance to the finals. The report
of the Grievance Committee is produced as DOCUMENT No. 9.
Thereby, the Plaintiffs despite scoring more marks in their respective
court hall could not be selected for the final round and hence the
Defendants found that there was no inconsistency in the Rules and
also in the application of the same in the Semi Final round of the
Competition.

15. The ridiculous explanation given by the Defendant in the report goes
on to shows the non-application of the rules framed by the
Defendants. It is clearly stated in the rules given by the Defendants,
that as per Page 7, Rule VII (C) two teams were to advance to the
finals on KNOCK OUT basis. The very strange interpretation of the
rules manifests the Defendants ulterior motives and malafide
intentions of not allowing the Plaintiffs to participate in the final
rounds despite they, winning the semi final rounds in their court hall.

16. That, the Plaintiffs despite having performed exceedingly well, by the
arbitrary and blasphemous attitude and actions of the First
Defendant had to bear the pain and suffering of a loss which they
were not entitled to. Injustice was inflicted blatantly and the First
Defendant having no remorse whatsoever just dismissed the Plaintiffs
without providing a suitable remedy.

17. That it is submitted that the Plaintiffs sent a legal notice to the
Defendants on 29.03.2014 demanding the Defendants to take
appropriate measures. The Defendants on 07.04.2014 sent a reply
denying all the allegations made in the said notice. The copy of the
legal notice, postal receipts, acknowledgments, the reply from the
Defendants and the certificate of participation are produced as
DOCUMENTS NO. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 respectively.

18. That, the Defendants have deeply hurt the sentiments of the Plaintiffs,
which cannot be compensated unless the Defendants fulfill the
remedies sought hereunder. The Defendants have been callous and
cold and have not acted in a manner which befits their stature.
Lawlessness prevailed in a law college and the Plaintiffs deeply
condemn this attitude of theirs. If the Defendants intended to change
and interpret the rules like the way they wanted to, they should
atleast have had the decency and courtesy to inform the Plaintiffs of
the same before the competition began, failing which they have
miserably failed in upholding the principles of law which they boast of
teaching in their institution.

19. That, it is humbly submitted that the cause of action took place on
23.03.2014 when the Defendant conducted the semi-final round in
the Competition and it is humbly submitted that the suit is in time as
per the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

20. The Plaintiffs have not filed any other suit or instituted any such
proceeding on the said cause of action and there are no other legal
proceedings or litigation pending on the said cause of action in any
other court to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs. The cause of action
arose within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court and hence this
Honble Court has the jurisdiction to hear and dispose the matter.

21. The Plaintiffs reserve the right to produce additional documents if
required, with the leave of this Honble Court, and amend, modify,
and revise the Plaint.

22. That, it is most respectfully submitted that the subject matter of the
suit is valued at Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)
and the requisite Court Fee of Rs. 1,150.00 (Rupees One Thousand
one Hundred and Fifty only) has been remitted to this Honble Court
as per The Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,1958.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs in the instant case humbly prays that this
Honble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree:
a. To declare that the Competition conducted by the Defendants was not in
accordance with the prescribed Rules.
b. Award compensation to the Plaintiffs from the Defendants to an amount
of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) along with an interest of
18% p.a. from the date of filing this suit.
c. Award compensation to an amount of Rs.5,000/- for the expenses
incurred by the Plaintiffs for participating in the competition.
d. Award compensation to an amount of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and
torture.
e. Granting the costs of this suit along-with such other and further reliefs
as are just in the eyes of justice and equity.


ADVOCATE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
PLAINTIFFS
BANGALORE
-:VERIFICATION:-
We, Sri.Jayanth Devkumar, S/o. J.Devkumar, Age 22 years, R/o. No.6, 1
st

Main Road, G.M.Palya, Thippasandra Post, Bangalore 560075, Sri.
Nithyananda.S.G, S/o.Dr.C.S.Gururaj, Age 22 years, R/o.No. 40, 4
th
A Cross,
5
th
Main, Shankarnagar, Bangalore 560096, Sri. Raunaq.K.V, S/o.
Vishwanath, Age 22 years, R/o. No. 859, Ashiana, 13
th
Main, Vinayaka Layout,
Nagarbhavi II Stage, Bangalore 560072 the Plaintiffs herein, do hereby state
that what is stated above is true to the best of our knowledge, information and
belief.


BANGALORE DEPONENTS
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE

IN

O.S.No.: /2014

BETWEEN
Sri. Jayanth Devkumar, and Ors. PLAINTIFFS

AND
THE PRINCIPAL,
BMS College of Law and Ors DEFENDANTS

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
We, Sri.Jayanth Devkumar, S/o. J.Devkumar, Age 22 years, R/o. No.6, 1
st

Main Road, G.M.Palya, Thippasandra Post, Bangalore 560075, Sri.
Nithyananda.S.G, S/o.Dr.C.S.Gururaj, Age 22 years, R/o.No. 40, 4
th
A Cross,
5
th
Main, Shankarnagar, Bangalore 560096, Sri. Raunaq.K.V, S/o.
Vishwanath, Age 22 years, R/o. No. 859, Ashiana, 13
th
Main, Vinayaka Layout,
Nagarbhavi II Stage, Bangalore 560072 the Plaintiffs, do hereby state that what
is stated above is true to the best of our knowledge information and belief.
1. That we are the Plaintiffs herein and I am aware of the facts leading upto
the present case.
2. We state that the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 22 above are true
to the best of my knowledge information and belief.
3. We state that Document nos. 1 to 13 are copies of the original.
Identified by me

Advocate
DEPONENTS
Bangalore.

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE

IN

O.S.No.: /2014

BETWEEN
Sri. Jayanth Devkumar, and Ors. PLAINTIFFS

AND
THE PRINCIPAL,
BMS College of Law and Ors DEFENDANTS

STATEMENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 14-A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908.

The Plaintiffs herein humbly submit that the address of the Plaintiffs
mentioned in the cause title is correct to the best of his knowledge, information
and belief. The Plaintiffs further submits that the address of the Defendants is
also correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief and nothing
has been concealed herein.


BANGALORE PLAINTIFF


ADVOCATE FOR THE PLAINTIFF