- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2779 CRP No. 100036 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100036 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI BHIMAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA KEELIKAI AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. SHEPHERD AND AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GONNAGAR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591127. 2. SHRI. CHIDANAND S/O. SIDDAPPA KEELIKAI AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. SHEPHERD AND AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GONNAGAR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591127. 3. SHRI. MARUTI S/O. SIDDAPPA KEELIKAI AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. SHEPHERD AND AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GONNAGAR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI– 591127. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATH AND SRI. JAYAVANT KAMBALI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O. SHEKHARAPPA PUJAR, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.15 12:14:11 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2779 CRP No. 100036 of 2024 R/O. GONNAGAR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. SIDDAVVA W/O. SHEKHARAPPA PUJAR, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GONNAGAR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. BASAPPA HUGAR, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JAGAPUR VILLAGE-582207, TQ. NARGUND, DIST. GADAG. 4. SMT. ANASUYA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA HUGAR, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HAMPIHOLI VILLAGE-591127, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. SHRI. NAGAPPA S/O. SHEKHARAPPA PUJAR, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GONNAGAR VILLAGE, PIN-591127, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SHRI. HANAMANT S/O. SHEKHARAPPA PUJAR AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GONNAGAR VILLAGE, PIN-591127, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 7. SMT. DHARMAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA PUJAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2779 CRP No. 100036 of 2024 R/O. KALLUR VILLAGE, PIN-591127, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 8. SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O. SHIVAPPA HUGAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. UDAKERI VILLAGE, PIN-591104, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. 9. SHRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. SHEKHARAPPA PUJAR, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GONNAGAR VILLAGE, PIN-591127, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 10. SMT. SAVITA W/O. BASAPPA HUGAR, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DATANAL VILLAGE, PIN-582207, TQ. NARGUND, DIST. GADAG. 11. SHRI. BASAVARAJ A/F SIDDAPPA PUJAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GONNAGAR VILLAGE, PIN-591127, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R10; R11 – HELD SUFFICIENT) ------ THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.11.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., RAMDURG IN O.S.NO.1138/21 ON I.A.NO.5 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2779 CRP No. 100036 of 2024 AND TO ALLOW IA NO.5 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by defendant No.1 to 3 challenging the order dated 08.11.2023 in O.S.No.113/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramadurga (for short “the Trial Court”) dismissing the I.A.No.5. 2. The plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.113/2021 seeking the relief of injunction against the defendants. The defendants entered appearance and filed an application in I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) stating that the suit is barred by time and also there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute suit seeking relief of injunction. Accordingly, I.A.No.5 under VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC is filed for rejection of the plaint. The said application was contested by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 08.11.2023 dismissed the application. Being - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2779 CRP No. 100036 of 2024 aggrieved by the same, defendants No.1 to 3 have filed this revision petition. 3. I have heard Sri.M.R.Hiremathad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Harish S Maigur, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 10. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the petitioners herein have already filed O.S.No.48/2021 seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and also for rectification of instruments and in that view of the matter, it is contended that the second suit in O.S.No.113/2021 filed by the respondents herein seeking relief of permanent injunction is not maintainable and also the suit is barred by law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the plaintiff in O.S.No.113/2021 is claiming relief of injunction against the petitioners herein, who have filed O.S.No.48/2021 seeking the relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and rectification of instruments. It is submitted that the relief claimed by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2779 CRP No. 100036 of 2024 parties in both the suits are different and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.48/2021 before the Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurga seeking the relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and rectification of instrument. The respondents herein have also filed O.S.No.113/2021 alleging that the petitioners herein are interfering with the suit schedule properties. It is also to be noted that the Trial Court, after considering the material on record, has considered the averments made in the plaint alone and came to conclusion that the relief claimed by the parties are different and further the cause of action in O.S.No.113/2021 is altogether different insofar as the cause of action in the earlier suit and taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, it has rightly dismissed the application. In that view of the matter, since it is the duty of the Trial Court to consider the averments made in the plaint alone and not guided by the averments made in the written statement, I find force in the submissions made by the learned - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2779 CRP No. 100036 of 2024 counsel appearing for the respondents herein that the matter requires a detailed enquiry to decide the suit on merits. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13