- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4353 CRP No. 100018 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100018 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHAMBHAKKA W/O. BHIMAPPA D/O. DYAMAPPA HULIKATTI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREHADAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA . 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA @ H. PUSHPA W/O. LATE MANJAPPA C., AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREHADAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA. 3. SMT. RATNAVVA D/O. LATE DYAMAPPA W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KHANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA. 4. ASHOK @ AGANUR ASHOK S/O. LATE DYAMAPPA AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREHADAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA. 5. SMT. BULLAMMA W/O. IRANNA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREHADAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA. 6. LAKSHMAN S/O. LATE DYAMAPPA AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREHADAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4353 CRP No. 100018 of 2025 7. SMT. NAGARATNA W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KENCHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA. 8. HULIKATTI BHIMAPPA S/O. HULIKATTI KARIYAPPA @ KARIYAPPAJJA, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREHADAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA. 9. HALESHAPPA S/O. HULIKATTI KARIYAPPA @ KARIYAPPAJJA, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREHADAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAKKAPPA S/O. LATE HULIKATTI KARIYAPPA @ VEERAPURADA KARIYAPPA, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREGADAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583219. 2. HANUMAPPA S/O. LATE HULIKATTI KARIYAPPA @ VEERAPURADA KARIYAPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREGADAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583219. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI ITINERARY SITTING AT SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUVINAHADAGALI DATED 07.12.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.56/2023 ON I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4353 CRP No. 100018 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed by the defendants No.1 to 9 in O.S.No.56/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli challenging the order dated 07.12.2024 on I.A.No.4, dismissing the application. 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is not in dispute that the suit is filed seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the subject matter of the suit. 3. Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to para No.4 of the plaint and argued that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file suit and the frivolous averments have been made to knock off the property of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4353 CRP No. 100018 of 2025 the defendants and therefore sought for interference of this Court. 4. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is not in dispute that the suit is one seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the subject matter of the suit. In order to ascertain the relationship of plaintiffs and defendants and to ascertain whether the suit property is the joint family property of the original propositus, a detailed enquiry is required to be made and accordingly the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants in I.A.No.4. 5. It is also to be noted that while considering the an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is guided with the averments made in the plaint alone and is not required to look into the averments made in the written statement. As the plaintiffs have established right over the suit property so also relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants with that of the propositus - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4353 CRP No. 100018 of 2025 and therefore I find no merit in the petition and accordingly the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36