- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848 CRP No. 100088 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100088 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O HANAMANTGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 313. 2. SRI. HANAMANTGOUDA S/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 313. 3. SRI. PRAJWAL S/O HANAMANTGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 313. 4. SRI. BALAJI SAND MANUFACTURING UNIT SURVEY NO.38, MAREGUDDI VILLAGE, R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRAJAWAL PATIL, AGE. 26 YEARS, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.18 07:56:56 +0100 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848 CRP No. 100088 of 2025 OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 313. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SUBHAS S/O RAMAPPA URF RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. SAND MININ CONTRACTOR, R/O. SHIDDARAMESHWAR NAGAR, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 313. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SUNDARA SOUHARD PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BAGALKOT, R/O. ATHANI KALYAN MANTAP, ENGINEERING COLLEGE CIRCLE, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT, PIN-581 701. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRANAV U. BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2025 ON IA NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULES 11(A) AND (D) R/W 151 OF CPC, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI IN O.S. NO.228/2024 CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT BY REJECTING THE PLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848 CRP No. 100088 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.08.2025 on an application for rejection of plaint, which was filed at I.A.No.5 invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’). 2. The trial Court has rejected the application on the premise that Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, is not applicable to the averments made in the plaint. 3. This Court has considered the impugned order and also considered the averments in the plaint. 4. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff is having 50% share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the mortgage of the suit property to defendant No.5 by defendant Nos.1 to 3, is illegal and has also sought permanent injunction from removing the plants and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848 CRP No. 100088 of 2025 machineries in the suit property. A few other reliefs are also sought, which may not be necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the present petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the plaintiff has not placed any material to establish his contention that he has any right over the property. It is his submission that the relief sought is negative relief and as such, the suit is not maintainable. It is his further submission that the plaintiff and defendants are not relatives, or the partners and as such, the suit is not maintainable. It is also his further submission that plaintiff is the employee of defendant No.4. 6. In support of his contention, he would refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (i) Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA)(D) The LRS & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019, (ii) Ramisetty Venkatanna and Anr Vs Nasyam Jamal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848 CRP No. 100088 of 2025 Saheb and Ors reported in 2023 AIAR (Civil) 543, (iii) State of Haryana and Ors Vs Hira Singh reported in 2023 AIAR (Civil) 549, (iv) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives reported in (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 601, (v) Godrej Properties Limited Vs H.K.Susheelamma and others in Civil Revision Petition No.374/2021. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 8. This Court has also perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Said judgments are rendered in the factual facts obtained in the aforementioned cases, which are entirely different from the facts narrated in the plaint. Hence, the ratio in the aforementioned judgments, are not applicable to the present case on hand. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848 CRP No. 100088 of 2025 9. The scope of the Court under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, is very much well settled. The Court has to go by the averments made in the plaint. Further, the averments made in the plaint, if it is noticed that the suit is time barred, or no cause of action has arisen, then the Court has to reject the plaint. After going through the contents of the plaint, it is noticed that, no such case is made out to attract Order VII to 11 of CPC. 10. The contention that the relief sought is a negative relief, cannot be accepted and merely because there is no blood relationship between plaintiff and defendant or assuming that plaintiff is the employee of defendant No.4, it cannot be said that the suit claiming declaration that the plaintiff has 50% share in the suit schedule property, cannot be dismissed by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Whether the plaintiff has really invested the amount as claimed in the plaint or not, is a matter of trial. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848 CRP No. 100088 of 2025 The trial Court is justified in rejecting the application. 11. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error to interfere in exercise of power Under Section 115 of the CPC. 12. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/- CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 76