- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13608 CRP No. 142 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 142 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O B BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS 2. SRI B ASHOKA S/O LATE B BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. SRI B JAGADISH @ JAGANNATH S/O LATE B BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A BALADARE VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT PUTTAMMA W/O LATE B C SHIVEGOWDA, SINCE R1 IS DEAD THE LR’S OF THE R1 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD I.E. R.NO.2 TO R.NO.9 2. SMT RATHNA (RATHNAMMA) W/O LATE B S SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13608 CRP No. 142 of 2025 3. SMT BHANUKUMARI D/O LATE B S SHANKAR, W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A HONNAKUMARANA HALLI, GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103. 4. B S MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE B S SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 5. B S SHAILA D/O B S SHANKAR, W/O DEEPAK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A KODIHALLI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DIST - 573103. 6. B S SAGAR S/O B S SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A BALADARE VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103 7. BHARATHI W/O B S DEVARAJU AGED 60 YEARS 8. B D MOHAN S/O LATE B S DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 9. B D LOKANATH S/O B S DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13608 CRP No. 142 of 2025 R1, 2, 4, 6 TO R9 ARE ALL R/A BALADARE VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103. 10. B D THYGARAJ S/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 11. SMT SUSHEELA D/O LATE C NANJAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 12. SMT SHANTHAMMA D/O LATEC NANJAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 13. SMT PUSHPA D/O LATE C NANJAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 14. SMT LAKSHMI B M W/O LATE B N LAKSHMI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 15. SMT. B L DIVYA PRASAD D/O LATE B N LAKSHMI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 16. SRI B L VINAY PRASAD S/O LATE B N LAKSHMI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 17. SMT B L KAVYA PRASAD D/O LATE B N LAKSHMI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 18. SMT B L NAVYA PRASAD D/O LATE B N LAKSHMI PRASAD, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13608 CRP No. 142 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R10 TO R18 ARE R/A BALADARE VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.V.KIRAN., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R18) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED ON IA IN OS.NO.7/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING / REJECTING THE I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.7/2018 challenging the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 27.01.2025, whereby the interlocutory application filed by the defendant No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint is dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13608 CRP No. 142 of 2025 2. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner for sometime, this Court finds that in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the applicant has not clearly stated the ground on which the application is filed under Rule 11 of Order VII. However, in the affidavit filed along with the application it is pointed out that there is an arbitration clause contained in the Partnership Deed dated 18.02.1985. It was therefore contended that if an arbitration clause is contained in the document, then any dispute arising in the partnership firm can be resolved only by way of an arbitration. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, has noticed this aspect of the matter but no reasons are assigned in the impugned order. However, to a pointed question put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what grounds are urged in the application, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners herein may be permitted to file a fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 making out the ground for rejection of the plaint. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13608 CRP No. 142 of 2025 3. Learned counsel has submitted that it is a settled position of law that the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm cannot be partitioned amongst the partners the partners can only seek rendition of the accounts and dissolution of the partnership firm in accordance with law. It is therefore submitted that there is no cause of action to maintain such a suit with a prayer for partition in respect of a partnership firm. 4. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, since no proper grounds were urged in the application filed at the hands of the defendant No.3, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defendants may be permitted to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 making out proper grounds, for reconsideration. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the defendants in O.S.No.7/2018 to file a fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC urging specific grounds on which the defendants seek rejection of the plaint. If such an - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13608 CRP No. 142 of 2025 application is filed, the trial court shall consider the same on merits and shall not dispose of the application on the ground that earlier such an application was filed and the court has considered the same. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL