- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7867 CRP No. 100056 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100056 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI ABDUL REHMAN SAYYAD, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 1A. SMT. NOORHAJAN W/O. ABDUL SAYYAD, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1B. SHRI. BABASAHEB S/O. ABDUL SAYYAD, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: CTS NO. 1937/1, CAR PARKING ROAD, BELAGAVI AND ALSO AT, OPPOSITE DADA MEDICAL SHOP, RAGHUNATH PETH, ANGOL ROAD, BELAGAVI – 590 001. 1C. SHRI. JAFAR S/O. ABDUL SAYYAD, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: CTS NO.1937/1, CAR PARKING ROAD, BELAGAVI AND ALSO AT, OPPOSITE DADA, MEDICAL SHOP, RAGHUNATH PETH, ANGOL ROAD, BELAGAVI – 590 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIJAYA W/O. TUKARAM KARLEKAR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CTS. NO. 1937 AND Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7867 CRP No. 100056 of 2025 CTS NO.1937/1, KADOLKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI – 590 001. 2. SHRI. UDAY S/O. TUKARAM KARLEKAR, AGED ABUT 49 YEARSM, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: CTS NO.1937 AND CTS NO.1937/1, KADOLKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI AND ALSO AT R/O: MALBAR HILL APARTMENT FLOOR NO.3 FLAT NO.6, NEAR RUTURAJ AVENUE CANADA CORNER, NASK – 422 005. 3. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. TUKARAM KARLEKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O: CTS NO.1937 AND CTS NO.1937/1, KADOLKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4. MRS. SHOBHA W/O. SUDHIR MARATHE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BANKING SERVICE, R/O: CTS NO. 1937 AND CTS NO.1937/1, KADOLKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI AND ALSO AT R/O: MARATHE WADA FORT AREA, MIRAJ, DIST: SANGLI – 416 410. 5. SHRI. FAYAZ PATHAN, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: FLOWER MERCHANT, R/O: CTS NO. 1937/1, CAR PARKING ROAD, BELGAVI – 590 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED IN IA. NO.14 IN O.S.NO. 403/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.403/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7867 CRP No. 100056 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. The present petition is filed by defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in O.S.No.403/2066 on the file of VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi by which the Trial Court has rejected the application in I.A.No.14 filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. Suit is filed by the respondents herein against the petitioners seeking judgment and decree directing the respondents herein to quit and deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit property and to pay the arrears of rent from December 2008 to 2011. The case of the plaintiffs/ respondents herein is that they are the owners of the suit property and defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent. Defendant No.1 was a chronic defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. That defendant No.1 has parted with the possession of the property by inducting defendant No.2 as a sub-tenant that he had issued quit notice on 17.08.2011 terminating tenancy of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7867 CRP No. 100056 of 2025 defendant No.1 effective from 30.09.2011 and called upon defendant No.1 to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of suit property. Non compliance of the said demand, he is constrained to file the relief sought for. 3. defendants who appeared filed the above application seeking rejection of the plaint, denying the jural relationship and contending that the defendants have been in possession of the property for over 50 years by virtue of deed of sale executed by one of the sharers and as such, the suit was not maintainable. That the name of the father of the defendants was entered into revenue records in the year 1986 with the knowledge of the plaintiff, as such, suit was barred by limitation. On this grounds, sought for rejection of plaint. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition, submits that since serious dispute with regard to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7867 CRP No. 100056 of 2025 the jural relationship is raised and also in view of defendants being in continued possession of the property pursuant to a unregistered sale deed, continuation of such a suit is abuse of process of law, requiring rejection of the plaint. The trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter resulting in passing of the impugned order. Hence, he seeks for allowing the petition. 5. Heard. Perused the records. 6. As already noted above, the plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be the owner of suit schedule property and they having inducted defendant No.1 as a tenant into the suit schedule property who allegedly subleased the same to defendant No.2. The plaintiffs claim to have issued a quit notice. 7. The primary contention of the defendants is non existence of a jural relationship and they being in possession of the property pursuant to an unregistered deed of sale for over 50 years. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7867 CRP No. 100056 of 2025 8. The settled principle of law is that for the purpose of consideration of plaint, only plaint averments alone needs to be looked at and not the defence. In the instant case, the plaintiffs claiming to be the owner of property as noted above have issued quit notice calling upon the defendants to vacate and handover the premises. The jural relationship being denied has to be adjudicated during the trial. The same cannot be the ground for rejection of plaint. Petition lacks merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 9. It is it is made clear any observation made by the trial Court or by this Court, while disposing of the application shall not come in the way of parties leading evidence and agitating their grounds in accordance with law. Pending IAs. does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VMB/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15