- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51614 CRP No. 455 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 455 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. K.P. LOBO S/O GEORGE LOBO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT LOBO BAKERY, BELVAI TOWN, BELVAI VILLAGE AND POST MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT- 574213 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE) AND: BELVAI GRAMA PANCHAYATH BELVAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KESARGADDE POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT- 574213. …RESPONDENT (BY MS.DEEPTHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.115/2018 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MOODBIDRI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR HAVING NO JURISDICTION. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51614 CRP No. 455 of 2023 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.Jayakara Shetty H., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms. Deepthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of this suit in O.S.No.115/2018 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri, Dakshina Kannada District by order dated 01.07.2023. 3. Gist of the case for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. Revision petitioner being the plaintiff, filed a suit against the respondent-defendant that he being the tenant in one of the shops belonging to the respondent- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51614 CRP No. 455 of 2023 Panchayath, was running a bakery in the name and style ‘Lobo Bakery’ in the premises. The term of lease has ended in the year 2018 and thereafter, after the period has ended, Panchayath notified the shops for re-auction and the plaintiff failed to participate in the said auction and the shop is now allotted to some other person. 3.2. In the meantime, the plaintiff had filed the suit with the following prayer: “That the plaintiff therefore prays for a judgment and decree against the defendant in terms of the following reliefs: a. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its officials, servants, agents and all persons claiming through or under it from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit ‘A’ schedule shop room or from interfering in any manner in plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘A’ schedule shop room except in accordance with law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51614 CRP No. 455 of 2023 The above relief is valued at Rs.1,000/- the purpose of Court fee of jurisdiction and a court fee of Rs.25/- is paid. b. Directing the defendant to pay the cost of this suit. c. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.” 4. The learned Trial Judge after entertaining the preliminary objections, dismissed the suit as it has no jurisdiction. 5. Impugned order is an appealable order. 6. Nevertheless, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 7. Taking note of the fact that the revision petitioner failed to participate in the auction and the property has already been allotted to someone else, nothing survives to be considered in the present revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51614 CRP No. 455 of 2023 8. Accordingly, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed not only as maintainable but also on merits. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43