- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47890 CRP No. 654 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 654 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAJASHEKAR G C S/O. LATE G. CHIDANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT 1519, 27TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU - 560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.M. HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G.C. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. LATE G. CHIDANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O. A-705, SALARPURIA LUXURIA 8TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 055 2. G C PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE G. CHIDANANDAPPA AGED 79 YEARS RESIDING AT SOWBAGHYA OPP: GRADUATE CO-OP SOCIETY KUVEMPU ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47890 CRP No. 654 of 2025 3. G C SHANMUKHA S/O. LATE G. CHIDANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT "SOWBAGHYA" OPP: GRADUATE CO-OP SOCIETY KUVEMPU ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.XX IN OS NO.249/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT SHIVAMOGGA., DISMISSING THE IA NO.XX FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) and (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. B.M. Halaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47890 CRP No. 654 of 2025 3. The revision petitioner is the second defendant in OS No.249/2023. 4. The suit is filed by the first respondent Sri. G.C. Shiva Kumar as a plaintiff in OS No.249/2023 who was a defendant in the earlier suit in OS No.47/1998 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shivamogga, which came to be dismissed on merits and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.362/2011 by Order dated 10.08.2023. 5. Present Revision petitioner was the appellant in the said suit and also the plaintiff in the earlier suit. 6. Plaintiff herein has now sought for the following relief in respect of following properties: SCHEDULE 1) Rice Mill Property, in bearing Shivamogga Mahanagara Palike Khatha / property No. 356/609, PID No. 110376, situated at Ward No. 25, New Mandli, Shivamogga (in bearing Survey No. 221 & 222 of Mandli village, Shivamogga), measuring total 79821 Sq.ft. (3 acres & 5 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47890 CRP No. 654 of 2025 guntas) (bearing municipal Khatha No. 553/676/616), & bounded by: East: Municipal Road West:Land belongs to lathiff Sab. North:Government road South: Land belonging to Mutt. II) All that piece and parcel of land and building property bearing old Municipal Khatha No. 877-945-1375 and New Municipal Khatha No. 750/750/1086, measuring 179.87 x 57.13 ft. = 10,260 sqft. situated at Kuvempu Road, Shivamogga (S.R.No. 8747/2010-11) and bounded by:- East: Measuring in the east 179 3% (form north to south) bounded by house property of Sri. H.Srinivas Rao. West: Measuring in west (80' starting from the south straight & then turns 2' to east & further 100' towards south till Kuvempu Road), bounded by the to use property of Sri. B.A. Mahendra. North:Measuring in the north 58' (from east to west) bounded by house property of Sri. T.C.Subramanya. South: Measuring in the north 56' - 1/4 (from east to west) bounded by Kuvempu Road 7. Suit was opposed by the present revision petitioner who is the second defendant in the said suit by filing the statement and also filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 sought for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the earlier suit filed by the present second defendant in OS No.47/1998 having been dismissed and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47890 CRP No. 654 of 2025 also confirmed by the division bench of this Court, it is deemed that there is no scope for further partition of the property. 8. Said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing written objections. 9. Learned Trial Judge by impugned order rejected the application. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the second defendant is before this Court. 11. Sri B.M. Halaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the plaintiff who is the first respondent in the present revision petition was ousted from the family earlier as he has taken his share in respect of the suit property and went away from the joint family long ago. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47890 CRP No. 654 of 2025 12. He would also contend that in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit in OS No.47/1998 wherein the present plaintiff was also a defendant and has claimed the share in the suit property, and suit having been dismissed, there is no scope for entertaining the subsequent suit. 13. In the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. Pertinently, present plaintiff who is the first respondent in this revision petition was fifth defendant in OS No.47/1998 filed by the very same revision petitioner as plaintiff as one of the plaintiffs. 15. If the first respondent in this revision petition is ousted from the joint family there was no necessity for the revision petitioner to arraign the first respondent as a party in OS No.47/1998. This would falsify the theory of ouster. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47890 CRP No. 654 of 2025 16. Nevertheless, plea of ouster has to be established by placing necessary evidence before the Trial Court and same cannot be considered at the threshold while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure that too by holding a mini enquiry. 17. This would take this Court to the second ground namely the second suit for partition is not maintainable in law the dismissal of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in OS No.47/1998 is confirmed by the division bench judgment of this Court in RFA No.362/2011. 18. Said contention cannot also be countenanced in law inasmuch as the fifth defendant in the suit having prayed the partition, and was a party before the First Appellate Court, court ought to have perused his plea if the plaintiffs failed to prove their case of seeking partition. 19. When there is a specific stand taken by the plaintiffs seeking partition of the property which was also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47890 CRP No. 654 of 2025 which was also the case of the fifth defendant, who is the plaintiff/first respondent in the present revision situation, question of maintaining a separate suit by him of which the present revision petition arises cannot be doubted with and same needs to be considered on merits in accordance with law. 20. Accordingly, following order: ORDER (i) Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. (ii) All the contentions are kept open to be urged before the Court. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52