- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5692 CRP No. 100023 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100023 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KABBER HANUMANTHA S/O. LATE KABBER PARVATHAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. 8TH WARD, KONDANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, TALUK: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583239. 2. SRI. KABBER NAGARAJ S/O. LATE KABBER PARVATHAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGALAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, TALUK: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583222. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KABBER HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O. LATE PAVADEPPA, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KONDANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, TALUK: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583239. 2. SMT. KABBERA HANUMAKKA W/O. LATE UMAPATHEPPA, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. POLICE STATION BACKSIDE, GANDIGANUR VILLAGE, TALUK: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583223. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5692 CRP No. 100023 of 2025 3. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR REVENASIDDESHWARA TEMPLE, GANDIGANUR VILLAGE, TALUK: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583223. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.VII IN O.S. NO.133/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT HOSAPETE, AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE PLAINT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 This petition is filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 assailing the order dated 25.11.2024 in OS No.133/2023 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), dismissing IA No.7 filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the relief - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5692 CRP No. 100023 of 2025 claimed by the plaintiff in OS No.133/2023 that, the plaintiff has sought for relief of partition as well as declaration simultaneously in respect of the subject matter of the suit and both the reliefs ought not to have been claimed. 3. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to paragraph No.10 in the plaint that, the cause of action said to have been placed by the plaintiff i.e., after the partition said to have been made on 04.12.1999, and after two decades, the suit is filed seeking declaratory relief and therefore, the plaint is barred by limitation. Hence, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought for interference of this Court. 4. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I have carefully examined the averments made in the plaint. No doubt the plaintiff has sought for both reliefs of partition and declaration with consequential relief of permanent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5692 CRP No. 100023 of 2025 injunction, plaint cannot be rejected at threshold without the aid of the evidence. 5. Having taken note of the entire averments made in the plaint makes it clear that, the defendants have mutated their names in the record of rights and the claim made by the plaintiff is to the extent of 1.08 acres out of 3.30 acres. However, insofar as the said aspect of the matter is concerned, full-fledged trial is requires to be conducted to determine the rights of the parties and therefore, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh1, is not applicable to the facts on record as the plaint averments makes it clear that, both the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are claiming rights over the suit schedule property to a common propositor-Kabber. 6. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the suit requires to be continued as the parties are agitating their rights before the Trial Court through oral 1 (2020) 16 SCC 601 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5692 CRP No. 100023 of 2025 and documentary evidence and therefore, the suit cannot be rejected as claimed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. 7. In the result, petition fails. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26