- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 225 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI THIMMEGOWDA S/OLT KAPANI CHIKKATHAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. SMT MANJULA W/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SMT RAMYA T W/O SHVIAKUMARA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. SMT RASHMI T W/O SRIDHARA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 5. SHRIDHARA S/O K T KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE GANGADHARIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 ALL ARE R/AT ABALAVADI VILLAGE AND POST KOPPAHOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 425 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KALLESHAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT PUTTMANIYAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS ABALAVADI VILLAGE AND POST KOPPA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 5714425 …RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN OS.NO.15/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Kaleshappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent. 2. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under : 2.1 First respondent/plaintiff filed a suit with following reliefs in respect of following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). PRAYER Wherefore the plaintiff respectfully pray that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for : (a) For grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6, their agents or anybody else on their behalf permanently from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 For court costs and for such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE 1. Land bearing Sy.No.144*, measuring 0.20.00.00 guntas, out of 4.35.00.00 acres, assessed at Re.0-11.50 paise, bounded on : East by: Land of Nayana C. & Sahana C. West by : Land of K. Thimmesh North by : Land of Nanjundegowda and so on South by: Rayasettipura village border (Mandya Taluk border) 2. Land bearing Sy.No.144*, measuring 0.19.00.00 guntas, out of 4.35.00.00 acres, assessed at Re.0-11.50 paise, bounded on : East by: Land of K. Thimmesh West by : Land of Doddahydegowda (Sy.No.146) North by : Land of Nayana C. & Sahana C. South by: Land of K. Thimmesh 2.2 Plaintiff contended that she is the wife of Late Chikkananjaiah and defendant no.1 is the son of her husband’s elder brother and defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1, defendant no.3 and defendant no. 4 are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 the daughters of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 and defendant no.5 and defendant no. 6 are sons-in-law of defendant no. 1 respectively. 2.3 Plaintiff further contented that suit properties are the ancestral properties of husband of the plaintiff and father of the first. 2.4 It is further contented that there was no partition in respect of the suit property and the plaintiffs sugar cane crop was being grown in the suit properties and the income was shared by the joint family. 2.5 It is further contented that after death of her husband, share that has been granted to her husband has been succeeded by her and revenue entries were mutated in her name. 2.6 It is further contented that defendants without there being any right, title or interest in respect of the suit property, started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 2.7 It is also submitted that sugar cane crop grown in the year 2022 was being supplied to NSL Sugars Ltd. and when the crop was ready for harvesting, defendants interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property which necessitated the filing of the suit. 2.8 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to reject the plaint vide I.A.No.4. 2.9 It is contented that there are previous civil proceedings in O.S. No.21/2021, 84/2022 and O.S. No.712/2023 and O.S. No.369/2024 on the file of Court at Maddur and the present suit is filed by the plaintiff with ulterior motive by suppressing the earlier proceedings and thus sought for rejection of the plaint as there is no cause of action to the suit. 2.10 Said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing written objections. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 2.11 Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, considered the rival contentions in a judicious manner dismissed the application holding in paragraphs No.14 to 16 as under.: "14. It is to be noted that at this juncture while deciding application U/o 7 rule 11(d), the court must not go into the roots of the matter. No doubt, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that the plaint which does not disclose the cause of action has to be nipped at bud. On perusal of the plaint averments in lieu of beacon of light of the principles enshrined by the constitutional courts and also in view of the allegations levelled against the defendants in the plaint, it certainly discloses the cause of action to file in this suit. The merits in the plaintiff case can be certainly distinguished from that of failure to disclose cause of action. The cause of action is nothing to do with the defence which may be set up by the defendant, not does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or in other words, to the media upon the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. It must be antecedent to the institution of the suit and on the basis of that cause of action the suit must have been filed. Whether any particular facts constitute a cause of action has to be determined with reference to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 the facts of each case, taking into consideration the substance of the matter rather than the form of action. 15. Reverting back to the factual matrix paragraph No.6, 7 and 10 of the plaint averment coupled with the various averments in the plaint clearly reveals that there is cause of action for filing the present suit. The defendants in the para No.23 of written statement submits that the plaintiff has narrated cause of action on the imaginary, it shows that the plaintiff has mentioned the cause of action in the plaint. Again the defendants have filed this application stating that the plaintiff has not mentioned cause of action, which is contrary to the written statement of defendant. When such being the case the contention urged by the defendants stating that the suit of the plaintiff does not reflects cause of action does not hold any water. The defendants further submits that with regarding to Sy No. 144 there are several suits are pending said facts not stated in the plaint hence suit of the plaintiff not maintainable. The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants for the relief of bare injunction said facts need not to be pleaded in the plaint. 16. Furthermore on conspectus reading of the plaint and on condign understanding of the plaint averments it is clearly forth coming that, there is a cause of action to file the suit as the plaintiff is seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. Furthermore the cause of action is the bundle of facts which leads the plaintiff to file the suit. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 When such is the case absolutely the contention urged by the defendant as there is no cause of action of file the suit does not hold any water. No prejudice will be caused to the defendant if this application is rejected. The defendant can very well urged their rights in demolishing the claim of the plaintiff during the course of trial. The defendants have not made out grounds to nip in the bud the plaintiff's case by invoking Order7 Rule11 (d) of CPC. The application filed by the defendants lacks merits. In the touchstone of the reasons above and discussions engulfed, this court answer point No.1 in the negative. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court in this revision petition challenging the validity of the said order. 4. Sri. Kalleshappa K.S., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that there is no cause of action to file the suit especially in the pendency of the earlier civil proceedings between the parties. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 5. Therefore, very filing of the suit itself is abuse of process of law and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit by rejecting the plaint. 6. In the light of the arguments put-forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 7. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit relief in the earlier proceedings is altogether different from the present suit. 8. As could be seen from the prayer, all that the plaintiff is seeking is an order of injunction stating that after the death of her husband Chikkananjaiah, she has succeeded to the suit property and she has grown sugar cane crop and when the crop was ready for harvesting to be sent to NSL Sugar Factory, NSL Sugars Ltd., there was an interference. 9. Further, if there is any order that has been obtained by the defendants in the earlier proceedings, it is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 always open for the present revision petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Trial Court and seek stay of the present suit by filing necessary application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the present suit and the earlier suit are in respect of the same property and in respect of the same relief. 10. Filing of the fresh suit by the plaintiff thus cannot be held to be abuse of process of law in view of the cause of action that has been mentioned in the plaint and dealt in extenso by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order. 11. Suffice to say that the material on record would not warrant interference in the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48747 CRP No. 225 of 2025 12. In view the same, following order: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) All contentions are kept open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45