- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 298 OF 2020 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SANNAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. NAGARAJU S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS CHIKKAGANGAPPA S/O DOGGANAHALLI RANGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 3. ASHWATHAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 4. RANGADHAMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 6. NAGARAJAIAH K C S/O LATE CHIKKAGANGAPPA Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 7. GANGAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 8. RANGADHAMAIAH S/O BADANA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1 TO 8 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KURKENAHALLI SINGANAHALLI MAJARA, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI (T), TUMAKURU(D) - 572 132. SANNAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 9. ASHWATHAMMA D/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 10. NAGARAJU S/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 11. HARISHA S/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 12. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS PETITIONERS NOS. 9 TO 12 ARE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 R/O GUTTE VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 132 TUMAKURU DISTRICT &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V JAVAHAR BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: LAKSHMINARASAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. K L RAVI S/O LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. K L SRIRAMAPPA S/O LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. NARAYANAPPA S/O VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 5. GOVINDAPPA S/O VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 6. KRISHNAPPA S/O VENKATARAVANAPPA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 7. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O NARASIMHAPPA W/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 8. RANGADHAMAIAH S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 ALL ARE RESIDING AT KURKENAHALLI, SINGANAHALLU MAJARA, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 132, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7; R1 AND R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2019 PASSED ON IA No.XXVII IN OS No.226/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT MADHUGIRI REJECTING IA No.XXVII FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC. FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.V.Javahar Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.G.S.Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7. 2. Defendants in O.S.No.226/2011 are the revision petitioners challenging the order passed on I.A.No.27 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter 8CPC9 for short). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit for declaration came to be filed in respect of the following immovable property and with the following prayer. SCHEDULE <Land bearing Sy.No.98/5 measuring 7 acres 7 guntas, assessed at Rs.5-53 ps, situated at - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 Singanahally, Kodigenahalli hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, bounded by East: Gramatana, West: land of Singanahally Rangappa, Eswaraiah and Eraiah, North: land of Guramma, South: Road.= PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiffs prays for a judgment and decree against the defendants. a. Declaring that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. b. For consequential for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents, servants or anybody from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. c. For costs and such other reliefs that the Hon9ble Court deems fit to grant to the plaintiffs under the circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.= 3.2. Plaintiffs9 contended that plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the suit property and therefore, they sought for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the suit property. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement. 5. Parties went into the trial. At the stage of cross- examination of the parties, defendant chose to file I.A.No.27 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC by contending that defendants are in possession of the suit property and in respect of the revenue matters, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and order passed by the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Director of Land Records is on the basis of suppression of material facts and therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint. 6. Same was objected to by the plaintiffs by filing a detailed written objection statement. 7. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, noted that in respect of a claim under Section 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, the matter requires recording of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 evidence in detail and real controversy between the parties, can be trashed out only after full-fledged trial and plaint cannot be thrown at the threshold. 8. Learned Trial Judge also noted that there is no proper explanation offered by the defendants for filing such a belated application seeking rejection of the plaint when the case has already progressed and evidence of the plaintiffs are recorded in part. 9. Learned Trial Judge is of the opinion that the issue raised in Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC requires recording of evidence and therefore, dismissed the application. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the approach of the Trial Court in rejecting the application seeking rejection of the plaint - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice inasmuch as it is settled principles of law that the application seeking rejection of the plaint can be filed at any stage of the suit. 12. He also pointed out that the controversy between the parties and the right claimed by the plaintiffs is based on the revenue entries which cannot be treated as a title to the suit property so as to grant the relief of declaration and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. 14. He would further contend that matter requires full-fledged trial and parties have joined the issue and the trial has commenced in the civil suit and therefore, rejection of the application filed by the defendants in the impugned order is just and proper. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 16. On such perusal of the material on record, there were already revenue proceedings which ensued between the parties before the suit came to be filed. 17. Real controversy with regard to the property as to the title to the suit property is to be thrashed out after full-fledged trial. 18. It is pertinent to note that the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC filed before the Trial Court is numbered as I.A.No.27. 19. Further, timing of filing of the said application is also significant. In the attendant facts and circumstances of the case even though there is no bar to file the application seeking rejection of the plaint at any stage of the suit. 20. However, taking note of the grounds urged in the application seeking rejection of the plaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that the parties are required to place necessary evidence on record and it is not a case - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44853 CRP No. 298 of 2020 where the plaint can be thrown at the stage of recording of the evidence of the parties. 21. Therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the defendants is just and proper which requires no interference that too under revisional jurisdiction. 22. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29