- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1155 CRP No. 531 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 531 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VARALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, 2. SRI SANDEEP AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O.LATE GOVINDARAJU, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF RAMESHWARA VILLAGE, DODABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDBALLAPUR TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NIRMALA AGED ABOUT 40YERS, W/O PRADEEP SUNILKUMAR, D/O.LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.3, 5TH CROSS, KANAKADAS LAYOUT, MAIN ROAD, LINGRAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560084. Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1155 CRP No. 531 of 2022 2. SMT R V NAMITHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, R/A NO.34, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, HONAKANAHALLI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 3. SMT HEMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O VARADARAJU, D/O.LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, RESIDENT OF PATUR VILLAGE, MARALAKUNTE POST, CHIKKABALLPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. SRI ASHWIN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, RESIDENT OF RAMESHWARA VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDBALLAPUR TALUK. 5. SMT NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O LATE R N VENKATARAMAIAH, R/AT NO.959, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, 16TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560076. 6. SRI PUNITH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOVINDARAJU, 7. SRI HANUMANTHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1155 CRP No. 531 of 2022 RESPONDENTS NO.6 & 7 ARE R/O RAMESHWARA VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203. 8. SMT RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O D H SHAMANNA, D/O.LATE NARAYANAPPA, R/O DASAGONDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203. 9. SMT PUSHPAVATHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, W/O SRI ANANDA REDDY, R/O KALAVARA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 V/O/D.26.11.2024, NOTICE TO R5 TO R9 IS D/W) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2022 PASSED ON IA No.2 IN OS No.559/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR, REJECTING THE IA No.II FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1155 CRP No. 531 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, aggrieved of the rejection of their interlocutory application filed in I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The suit was filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 herein. The prayer in the suit is for declaration that the plaintiffs have 1/5th share in all the plaint schedule properties; to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District to effect partition and put the plaintiffs in possession of the respective shares; to conduct an enquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC; to declare the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.130/2009 and decree passed in R.A.No.10006/2015 are not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. Three items are shown in the schedule. The petitioners herein being the defendants in the suit filed an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1155 CRP No. 531 of 2022 application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs and that the suit is barred by law. The grounds made out in the application are that in the previous suit which was filed at the hands of the mother of the respondent No.1 herein, the rights of the family members of Sri Venkataramaiah and his wife Nanjamma have been declared and protected. It was therefore contended that the plaintiffs will not get a fresh cause of action to file a suit seeking partition and separate share. It was also submitted that all the three items of the suit schedule properties were in the schedule of the previous suit in O.S.No.130/2009. For the same reason, it was contended that when once a court has decided the rights of the parties, a subsequent suit on the same cause of action seeking similar relief would not be permissible. It is contended that since the right of the members of family have already been declared by the civil court in O.S.No.130/2009 and affirmed in R.A.No.10006/2015, an - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1155 CRP No. 531 of 2022 interse dispute of the family members of Sri Venkataramaiah cannot be forced upon other members of the family, whose rights have already been declared in the previous suit. The Trial Court rejected the application and consequently the defendants No.2 and 4 are before this Court aggrieved of the rejection of the said application. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out from the impugned order that the trial court accepted the contention of the plaintiffs that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALA /VS./ HEMANT VITHAL KAMAT AND OTHERS – (2021) 9 SCC 99, has declared that since an adjudication of the plea of resjudicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decisions in the “previous suit”, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners however sought to place reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramisetty Venkatanna - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1155 CRP No. 531 of 2022 and Anr. /vs./ Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors. – 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 372, wherein it is held that while deciding application under Order VII Rule II, mainly the averments in the plaint only are required to be considered and not the averments in the written statement. A plaint ought to be rejected when it is vexatious, there is apparently illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order. The decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also in the same line as in the case of SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALA (supra), which was relied upon by the trial court. There cannot be any dispute regarding the declaration of law in the case of Ramisetty Venkatanna which is in similar lines as in SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALA, where the Hon’ble - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1155 CRP No. 531 of 2022 Supreme Court has only reiterated the line of decisions where it was held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule II, the court is required to consider the averments made in the plaint and cannot look into the averments in the written statement or objections filed at the hands of the defendants. This Court has gone through the plaint and finds that the plaintiffs have not concealed the factum of the suit filed by their mother in O.S.No.130/2009. However, it is also stated in the plaint that during the course of the Regular Appeal, an interlocutory application was filed by the plaintiffs to be impleaded as party defendants to the suit. However, such an application was rejected. It is therefore the contention of the plaintiffs in the present suit that they also have a right and share in the suit schedule properties and their interest or rights have not been protected by the judgment passed in O.S.No.130/2009. In that view of the matter, the trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that there is sufficient cause of action to maintain the suit. However, the question as to whether the rights of the parties have - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1155 CRP No. 531 of 2022 already been declared in the previous suit and therefore the subsequent suit cannot be entertained on the ground of resjudicata is a plea which can be considered only after the evidence is brought on record. At this stage, before the evidence is brought on record, it is impermissible for the defendants to raise such plea of resjudicata, more-so, by filing of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 6. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL