- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7665 CRP No. 100052 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100052 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. PANDURANG VENKATESH PADNEKAR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, PRESENT AT R/O: SRINIVAS COLONY, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. PEMANATH PANDURANG PADNEKAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, PRESENT R/O: SRINIVAS COLONY, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH V. BADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. SEEMA ANAND UCHAGAONKAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: “DATTAGURU KRUPA”, NISARGA RESIDENCY, NEAR SHIRODA NAKA, SALAWADA, SAWANTWADI, SINDHUDURGA DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE – 416 510. 2. SHRI. RAMA KALLAPPA MANGANI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BASAWAN GALLI, SANTIBASTWAD, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7665 CRP No. 100052 of 2025 TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. 3. SHRI. PRASHANT PRAKASH SONAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO. 82, SCHEME NO. 40-A, IIIRD STAGE, SHRI RAM COLONY, HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4. SHRI. KIRAN ARUN CHIKORDE, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO. 2663, KHADARWADI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. 5. SHRI. PRAMOD ARUN CHIKORDE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO. 2663, KHADARWADI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.2 DATED 22.03.2025 PASSED BY VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO. 875/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DISMISS THE SUIT BEARING O.S.NO. 875/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BELAGAVI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THE HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE CALLED FOR TCR PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.875/2024 FOR PROPER CONSIDERATION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7665 CRP No. 100052 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. Petitioners/defendants No.5 and 6 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.875/2024 on the file of VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi by which the Trial Court has rejected the application in I.A.No.II filed by the petitioners/defendants No.5 and 6 under Order 7 Rule 11(A) and (D) read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. The above suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for relief of permanent injunction. It is contended that the plaintiff is the owner of schedule property having purchased the same in terms of deed of sale dated 08.08.1990 and the name of the plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue records. The defendants are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and without having any right, title and interest are trying to encroach upon the suit property and thereby disturbing the peaceful possession of the suit property. It is alleged - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7665 CRP No. 100052 of 2025 that during the second week of May-2024, defendants came near the suit property tried to encroach upon the suit property illegally and with highhandedness constraining the plaintiff to file the suit. 3. Defendants No. 5 and 6 filed the aforesaid application contending that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose the cause of action and also is prohibited under Section 28 of the Karnataka Registration Act. The Trial Court has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants No.5 and 6 are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel retreating the grounds urged in the petition submits that Trial Court while rejecting the application has not adverted to the contention of the defendants No.5 and 6 of the plaintiff not disclosing the cause of action. He submits that the property of the defendants is nowhere situated near the property of the plaintiff and he has also produced the revenue extract to establish this fact of the matter. Hence, the question of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7665 CRP No. 100052 of 2025 they attempting to encroach upon the property would not arise. He submits that the other contention urged is Section 28 of the Karnataka Registration Act, which according to him prohibits registration of deed of sale outside the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar within which the property is located. On these two grounds, he submits that the Trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint. 5. Heard. Perused the records. 6. Settled principle of law is that for the purpose of consideration of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only plaint averments are required to be looked into and nothing else. Plaintiff who claims to be the owner of the suit property repeatedly at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint has alleged illegal interference by the defendants into her property. In a suit for bare injunction all that is required to be pleaded is party being in lawful possession and alleged interference by the defendant. Averments/pleadings requiring the same are made in the plaint as rightly taken note of by the Trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7665 CRP No. 100052 of 2025 Therefore, the contention that plaint does not disclose the cause of action cannot be countenanced. 7. As regards the plea of Section 28 of the Karnataka Registration Act, the said Section pertains to procedure for registering document and the same does not in any manner whatsoever prohibit filing of a suit or exclude Jurisdiction of Trial Court to try the suit. The present application by the petitioners being a frivolous one, is liable to be dismissed. 8. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the plaintiff before the Trial Court. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27