- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11702 CRP No. 344 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 344 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.S. UDAYA SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, S/O P SHIVASHANKAR, 2. SRI KIRAN SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SRI UDAYA SHANKAR, 3. SRI U KEERTI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O SRI S UDAYA SHANKAR, ALL ARE R/AT SHANTINIKETAN, NO.101, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560019. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VARUN GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHARATI G SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI GIRIJA SHANKAR, SHANTINIKETAN, NO.101, BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, BULL TEMPLE, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU -560019. Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11702 CRP No. 344 of 2023 2. MR SAIMEET GIRIJASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARSS, S/O LATE GIRIJA SHANKAR APARTMENT NO.1005, 745 YORK MILLS ROAD, TORONTO ON-M3B 1XB, CANADA, REP BY HIS MOTHER SMT BHARATI G SHANKAR . 3. MR M N SURESH AGED 69 YEARS, S/O MR NANJUNDA SETTY, 4. MR M N RAMESH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O MR M NANJUNDA SETTY, 5. MR M N SATHISH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O MR M NANJUNDA SETTY, RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.630, MANANDI OPAL CHICKPET, BENGALURU -560053. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH B N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 V/O/D.31.07.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 IS H/S) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.23 IN OS NO. 5659/2018 PASSED BY THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.1/22 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OS.NO.5659/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND REJECT THE PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11702 CRP No. 344 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners are defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.5659/2018 and the petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-A, whereby their application filed under Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, read with under Order VII Rule 3, read with under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, has been rejected. 2. Learned Counsel submits that the suit has been filed against defendants No.1 to 3, who are the family members of the plaintiffs, while defendants No. 4 to 6 are the subsequent purchasers at the hands of defendants No.1 to 3. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of 50% of the share in the two suit schedule properties, while also seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 30.04.2008 (executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendants No.4 to 6) is illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs. Similar relief insofar as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11702 CRP No. 344 of 2023 the gift deeds dated 19.11.2005 and 23.08.2012 is also sought. 3. By filing the application in I.A.No.1/2022, defendants No.1 to 3 sought for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs have not furnished the RTC in respect of item No.2, which is an agricultural land, while contending that sub-section (1) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, compels the production of the certified copy of the Records of Rights or Register of Mutation along with the plaint. Sub-section (2) provides that if the plaintiff fails to produce the certified copy of the RTC along with the plaint, he shall produce the same within a reasonable time to be fixed by the court and if such certified copy is not so annexed or produced, the plaint shall be rejected. 4. Further, it is also contended that insofar as item No.2-agricultural land is concerned, boundaries have not been furnished and therefore, on both counts the plaint has to be rejected. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11702 CRP No. 344 of 2023 5. The trial court has rejected both the contentions while holding that from the plain reading of the plaint, it does not appear to be barred by any law. It is also held that order VII Rule 11 of the CPC will not enable court to reject the plaint on the ground that a certified copy of the RTC has not been furnished along with the plaint or that boundary of a suitable property has not been furnished along with the plaint. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court no fault can be found in the impugned order, since Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC permits rejection of the plaint where the plaint does not disclose the cause of action; where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court the court fee is not paid within a time to be fixed by the Court; where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; where the suit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11702 CRP No. 344 of 2023 appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; where the plaint is not filed in duplicate and where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9. Rule 9 pertains to the summons to be served on the defendants. Therefore, having regard to the express provisions, this Court finds that the contentions raised by the petitioners herein for rejection of the plaint will not be permitted in terms of the said provisions. The provision contained in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot be pressed into service for rejection of a plaint which has been filed before a competent civil court. 7. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. The trial court shall endeavor to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 8. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL