- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1736 CRP No. 100005 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100005 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHRIKANT S/O. RAMU NIMBALKAR, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAINAKAWADI HAMLET OF SADALAGA, TALUK. CHIKKODI-591201, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANJEEV S/O. GANAPATI NIMBALKAR AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAINAKAWADI HAMLET OF SADALAGA, TALUK. CHIKKODI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591201. 2. RAJU @ RAJEEV S/O. GANAPATI NIMBALKAR AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAINAKAWADI HAMLET OF SADALAGA, TALUK. CHIKKODI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591201. 3. BABURAO S/O. RAMU NIMBALKAR AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. VISHRAM BAG SANGLI, TALUK. SANGLI, DISTRICT. SANGLI, STATE. MAHARASTRA-416406. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.02.04 11:03:17 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1736 CRP No. 100005 of 2025 4. RAJENDRA S/O. MAHADEV NIMABALKAR AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ABDULAT, TALUK. SHIROL, DIST. KOLHAPUR-416002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH BIRANAGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO. 120/2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKODI VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY ALLOWING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Revision Petition is filed by the defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 19.12.2024 in OS No.120/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkodi (for short, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1736 CRP No. 100005 of 2025 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), dismissing IA No.III filed by the defendant No.1. 3. Having taken note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as the plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of declaration and defendant has entered appearance and took up a contention that the lis between the parties has been set resolved in OS No.256/2006. Hence, the defendant No.1 has filed application in IA No.III under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 4. The Trial Court after considering the material on record rightly rejected the application as the parties have to adduce evidence to prove their title in respect of the subject matter of the land. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the rights of the parties is crystallized in OS No.256/2006 and same has been confirmed by this Court in RSA No.5160/2011 and further same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.8603 of 2022 however, it is the duty of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1736 CRP No. 100005 of 2025 parties to adduce evidence and to produce the relevant documents during the trial for final adjudication of the matter. 6. In that view of the matter, finding recorded by the Court below is just and proper and impugned order does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35