- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1539 CRP No. 100003 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100003 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: BASAPPA S/O. SIDALINGAPPA AINAPUR, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANKANAWAD - 591222 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GIRISH S/O. LAXMAN BELAKUD, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANKANAWADI - 591222 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. LAXMAN S/O. GIREPPA BELAKUD, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANKANAWADI - 591222 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SMT.CHANDRAVVA S/O. LAXMAN BELAKUD AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KANKANAWADI - 591222 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. BASAVVA S/O. TEJAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, AND HOUSE HOLD WORK, MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.01 11:42:59 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1539 CRP No. 100003 of 2025 R/O. KANKANAWADI - 591222 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. MALLAPPA S/O. LAXMAN BELAKUD, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANKANAWADI - 591222 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SMT. RAJASHREE S/O. RAMAPPA BALIGAR, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, AND HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. KANKANAWADI - 591222 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 7. BASAVARAJ S/O. LAXMAN BELAKUD, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KANKANAWADI - 591222 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS ----- THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG IN OS NO.102/2020 ON IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 F CPC AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION IN IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC SEEKING REJECTION OF THE PLAINT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1539 CRP No. 100003 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This Revision petition is field by defendant No.7 challenging the order dated 19.12.2024 in O.S.No.102/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag1 dismissing the application. 2. The plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property. Defendants entered appearance and contested the matter by filing written statement. In the meanwhile, defendant No.7 has filed I.A.No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of CPC, seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. 3. The said application was contested by the plaintiff. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 19.12.2024 dismissed the application. Hence, defendant No.7 has preferred this revision petition. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1539 CRP No. 100003 of 2025 4. Heard Sri.Shriharsh A Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, suit is filed in the year 2020 to question the sale deed dated 20.06.2005 after lapse of 16 years from the date of execution of the sale deed and therefore the suit is barred by limitation and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, suit is filed seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of subject matter of the suit. It is settled principle of law that while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, it is the duty of the Court to consider the averments made in the plaint alone. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the sale deed sought to be challenged is of the year 2005, however, looking into the averments made in the plaint, mixed question of fact and law are involved in this petition as the plaintiff has sought for relief - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1539 CRP No. 100003 of 2025 of partition and therefore I am of the view that an enquiry is required to be conducted in the matter. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. The revision petition is dismissed. ii. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25