- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41652 CRP No. 897 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.897 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI GURUMURTHY S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA BENNEHALLI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.190, 36TH B CROSS 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR NEAR NATIONAL COLLEGE BENGALURU -560 067 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN R, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAGHUNANDAN A R S/O LATE RAJGURU A P AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.37, 8TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, NEAR BANDE MAHAKALAMMA BUS STOP VINAYAKA LAYOUT NAGARABAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU -560 072 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI LAKSHMISHA.B.S, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS No.979/2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AND C/C OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE IA No.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41652 CRP No. 897 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Praveen R, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant in O.S No.979/2021 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is the revision petitioner challenging the Order on I.A.No.3 dated 30.11.2024 rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit was filed by the respondent herein in O.S No.979/2021. Suit prayer reads as under: “(a)Declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule ‘C’ and ‘D’ property under registered sale deed dated 23.06.2018 vide document bearing No.DNH-1-02116-2018-19, Vol-I, CD No.DNHD668 registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Devanahalli. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41652 CRP No. 897 of 2024 (b) Declare that the defendant is not a owner of the schedule ‘C’ and ‘D’ property under registered sale deed dated 23.06.2018 vide document bearing No.DNH-1- 02116-2018-19, Vol-I, CD No.DNHD668 registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Devanahalli. (c) Pass a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, representatives, assignees, or anybody claiming through or under him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.” 4. Properties involved in the suit are hereinafter is referred to as ‘suit properties’ and they are detailed hereunder: “SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the converted land admeasuring 45 acres 36 guntas comprised in Sy.Nos.192/1, 192/2, 193/2, 201, 202, 205 (collectively bearing K.S.No.145) 193/1, 194 (bearing K.S.No.155) 206/3 (bearing K.S.No.207), 204 (bearing K.S.No.220) and 155 (bearing K.S.No.212) situated at Sadahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore North District. SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of vacant site/plot bearing No.104 (now bearing K.S.No.145/8) total measuring 7,5,74 sq.ft. bearing the portion of the schedule A - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41652 CRP No. 897 of 2024 property situated at Sadahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore North District and bounded by: East by : Internal Road, West by : K.S.No.145/19, North by : K.S.No.145/9, South by : K.S.No.145/7. SCHEDULE ‘C’ PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the northern portion of the site bearing number 104 old K.S.No.145/8, New katha No.206/145/8/104 and PID No.150300200401200929 admeasuring 3,787 sq.ft. formed in the private layout known as JADE GARDEN situated at Sadahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore North District and bounded by: East by: Internal Road, West by: K.S.No.145/19 (site No.204) 12.35 meters, North by: K.S.No.145/8 (remaining portion of plot No.104) 28.5 mtrs, South by: K.S.No.145/7 (plot No.103) 28.5 mtrs. SCHEDULE ‘D’ PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of immovable property being a residential unit having a built up area of approximately 1,850 sq.ft. constructed on the schedule C property comprising of three bedrooms. Kitchen and one hall. Construction is of brick and mortar, roofing is made of partly RCC and partly Mangalore tiles, flooring is Mosaic, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41652 CRP No. 897 of 2024 doors are jungle wood and windows are Aluminum framed.” 5. Plaintiff laid the claim before the Trial Court by contending that plaintiff and defendant are known to each other and they were friends for few years. Plaintiff is financially well placed and has several properties in and around Bengaluru. Plaintiff has the passion to invest the money in immovable properties as and when there is surplus of money that is derived out of his business. 6. Plaintiff further submitted that defendant gave a rosy picture to the plaintiff and lured the plaintiff to invest the money for the purchase of residential property through the defendant. 7. Further, defendant expressed his acquaintance with the owners of the residential property i.e., the northern portion of Site No.104, old Katha No.145/8, new Katha No.206/145/8/104 having the PID No.150300200401200929 measuring 3,787 sq.ft. built up area of 1,850 sq. ft. formed in private layout known as Jade Garden situated in Sadahalli, Devanahalli Taluk, which is the suit property. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41652 CRP No. 897 of 2024 8. Plaintiff negotiated with the owners in the presence of the defendant and arrived at the final sale consideration in a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. 9. Thereafter, plaintiff arranged the sale consideration and in order to manage the schedule property, plaintiff with bonafide belief requested the defendant to be a part of sale transaction with owners of the suit property. 10. Plaintiff further contended that taking advantage of said circumstances defendant started to claim ownership over the suit property. Therefore, suit was initiated. 11. Cause of action paragraph in the plaint reads as under: “The cause of action for the suit arose on 23.06.2018 when the plaintiff incorporated the name of the defendant under the registered sale deed and continued when the defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and thereafter on subsequent dates and further during November 2021 when the defendant once again tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property and thereby tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property. The schedule property is situated within the territorial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41652 CRP No. 897 of 2024 jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court as such this Hon’ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the captioned suit against the defendant.” 12. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared, denied the plaint averments by filing detailed written statement inter alia contending that suit is barred by limitation having regard to the dates mentioned in the cause of action paragraph and the suit is per se barred by limitation and sought for rejection of the plaint as there is no cause of action to the suit. 13. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision petition. 15. Sri R. Praveen, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that, having regard to the dates mentioned in the cause of action paragraph and the transaction which is laid on by the plaintiff, the very prayer of seeking - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41652 CRP No. 897 of 2024 declaration itself is barred by limitation. Therefore, there is no cause of action to the suit and hence sought for allowing the revision petition. 16. Per contra, Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, opposes the revision grounds and supports the impugned judgment. 17. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 18. On such perusal, even from the material averments made in the plaint itself, there are several disputed questions including the question of limitation, which is a mixed question of law and facts which requires a detailed trial. 19. Defendant having conveniently denied all the plaint averments, cannot take advantage of the material available on record and say that the suit is barred by limitation. 20. Defendant has to establish that he has also got independent right along with the plaintiff in the transaction that took place with in respect of purchase of suit property. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41652 CRP No. 897 of 2024 21. When such disputed material facts are on record, throwing away the plaint at the threshold is uncalled for. Hence, the application filed by defendant is rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. 22. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds are meritless. 23. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and defendant is at liberty to canvass all favourable points in the trial including the question of limitation. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24