- 1 - CRP No. 100087/2025 RESERVED ON : 17.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100087 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SIDDAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA PIRAGOJI AGE. 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BASAV NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, MURGOD ROAD, BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. 2. SMT. KASTURI W/O. SIDDAPPA PIRAGOJI AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF BASAV NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, MURGOD ROAD, BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI AMRUT V. JOIS, ADVOCATE.) AND: SRI KUBER @ KUBENDRA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA PIRAGOJI AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF BASAV NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, MURGOD ROAD, BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.26 14:38:11 +0530 - 2 - CRP No. 100087/2025 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.197 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2024 ON I.A.NO.8 AND REJECT THE PLAINT OF RESPONDENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, in O.S.No.197/2022, on I.A.No.8 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC. 3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.197/2022 - 3 - CRP No. 100087/2025 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. On appearance of the defendants, the defendants have filed I.A.No.8 under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint. This application was supported with the affidavit of Sri Siddappa S/o.Basavanneppa Piragoji, in which it is stated that in paragraph No.10 of the plaint, the cause of action of the suit is stated that on 21.07.2022 when defendant No.1 rejected the request for partition and also blackmailing for relinquishment of rights for 03 plots and the same is continuous one. It is submitted that the cause of action is a bundle of facts, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In paragraph No.8 of the plaint it is stated that the present suit properties were dealt with in O.S.No.18/2012. It is also admitted that the said suit is decided. The plaint is nothing but deemed incorporation in the suit. The plaintiff has averred that the suit O.S.No.18/2012 has been disposed of by holding that - 4 - CRP No. 100087/2025 the sister of the plaintiff by name Gowravva is entitled for 1/27th share in the suit schedule A properties and he and the plaintiffs are entitled for 10/27th share each. The plaintiff has preferred Regular First Appeal No.100159/2017 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.18/2012 before this Court and the same is pending for disposal. The suit properties in the suit are the subject matter of appeal pending disposal before this Court. By suppressing the same, the plaintiff has filed this suit by creating false cause of action with the false set of facts. The plaintiff in O.S.No.18/2012 by name Gowravva has also filed RFA Crob No.100007/2018 in RFA No.100159/2017, wherein Smt.Gowravva had challenged the decree passed in O.S.No.18/2012. This being the fact, the subject matter of the suit is sub-judiced (before this Court). The parties to the appeal are bound by the judgment of this Court including the parties in the suit. On all these grounds he sought for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff has filed objections to this application contending that the pleadings of the plaintiff are very well revealed - 5 - CRP No. 100087/2025 the cause of action. The cause of action arose to the suit and the same is continued one. This I.A. is based on the bare and imaginary count. Defendant No.1 instigated his sister for filing the suit in O.S.No.18/2012. In order to get excess share through his sister, he has also married the daughter of his own another sister and the sisters are co-operating for his illegal activities. After trial, the present suit properties are decided as personal properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Meanwhile, defendant No.1 got created unregistered and bogus document coloured as the plaintiff given up his rights in his favour in respect of 03 plots since 2010. Hence the plaintiff has filed suit. The defendants hand in glove with each other have falsely filed present I.A. in order to prolong the matter and avoid the legal share of the plaintiff. Hence sought for dismissal of the I.A. 5. Having heard the arguments, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. Being agreed by this order passed on I.A.No.8, the Revision Petitioner has preferred this petition. - 6 - CRP No. 100087/2025 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the materials on record in accordance with law and on facts. The cause of action shown by the plaintiff does not constitute the cause of action which is required in law and sought for allowing this petition. 7. On a careful examination of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the trial Court has rejected this application by assigning reasons in paragraph Nos.7 to 13, in which the trial Court has rightly observed that, at the stage of considering an application seeking rejection of the plaint, the Court is bound to rely upon the plaint averments and the defence available to the other side cannot be considered. A perusal of the plaint paragraph No.10, it is clearly stated as to the cause of action to the suit arose on 21.07.2022. The grounds urged in the affidavit, which is supported to the I.A., filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, may be considered only after full- fledged trial. The trial Court has properly observed the same and rejected the application. I do not find any error - 7 - CRP No. 100087/2025 or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is dismissed. ii) In view of dismissal of the petition itself, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MRK CT-CMU