- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8119 CRP No. 100060 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100060 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RANGAVVA KALI W/O. KESHAPPA KALI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORIK, RESIDENT OF RAMAGERI VILLAGE, LAXMESHWAR TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT - 582 116. 2. SMT SUNITA KAGI W/O. MARUTI KAGI, AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF GAVI SIDDESHWAR COLONY, GOPANKOPPA, HUBBALLI - 580 023. 3. SRI. GANGADHAR KALI S/O. KESHAPPA KALI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/FARMER, RESIDENT OF RAMAGERI VILLAGE, LAXMESHWAR TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT - 582 116. 4. SRI. LOKESH KALI S/O. KESHAPPA KALI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/FARMER, RESIDENT OF RAMAGERI VILLAGE, LAXMESHWAR TALUK, GADAG DISTRICTN - 582 116. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNILKUMAR BANGARI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAMAPPA KALI S/O. MARIYAPPAN KALI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, RESIEENT OF RAMAGERI VILLAGE, LAXMESHWAR TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT - 582 116. … RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8119 CRP No. 100060 of 2025 O.S.NO.98 OF 2022 PENDING IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC LAXMESHWAR AT LAXMESHWAR. ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC LAXMESHWAR AT LAXMESHWAR ON IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a), (b) AND (d) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.98 OF 2022 AND THEREBY REJECT THE PLAINT/SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2025, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar rejecting I.A. No.2 filed by them under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S. No. 98 of 2022. 2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff / respondent herein seeking declaration of his ownership and consequential relief of permanent injunction, claiming himself to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, having constructed a residential house thereon pursuant to a release made in his favour in 2005-06 by one Mr. Keshappa, the husband and father of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8119 CRP No. 100060 of 2025 defendant Nos.1 to 4, respectively. It is further alleged that after demise of Keshappa, the defendants illegally obtained the revenue records mutated in their names without his knowledge and behind his back. Hence, the suit for declaration and injunction. 3. The petitioners / defendants filed the above application in I.A. No.2 seeking rejection of plaint contending that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, proper Court fee is not paid, and the suit is barred by limitation. 4. Objection to the said application is filed. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the contents of the application and grounds urged in the petition, submitted that in paragraph No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff admitted that the husband and father of the defendants passed away on 13/11/2013, and the defendants, in collusion with the revenue officers, obtained - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8119 CRP No. 100060 of 2025 entries in the revenue records. Thus, the plaintiff was completely aware of these entries, but did not question them until filing the suit. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the plaintiff has not produced any material regarding his ownership and has also not sought possession, and a suit for bare declaration is not maintainable. On these grounds, he contended that the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint instead of rejecting the application. Hence, the petition. 6. Heard. Perused the records. 7. The suit is filed by the respondent / plaintiff seeking a declaration of his title in respect of the suit property. In paragraph No.4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the plaintiff and Keshappa had jointly purchased the suit property in the name of defendant No.4 and that the Keshappa, the husband and father of defendants had obtained a release of rights of defendant No.4 in the suit property in favour of plaintiff and delivered the possession, and the plaintiff accordingly has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8119 CRP No. 100060 of 2025 been in possession and enjoyment of the same by constructing a house thereon. 8. Paragraph No.5 of the plaint refers to the date of death of the husband and father of the defendants, along with the allegation that the defendants obtained mutation of their names in the revenue records. At paragraph No.7, the plaintiff claims the cause of action to be of the year 2002. The plaint, read as a whole, cannot be said lacking cause of action. 9. The defence set up by the defendants cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, to be considered during trial. Mere non-payment of Court fee is also not a ground unless the Court determines the insufficiency of Court fee, directs payment, and the plaintiff fails to comply with the direction. In any case, the plaintiff has apparently amended the plaint has given fresh valuation slip, as seen at paragraph No.9 of the plaint. The trial Court has taken into consideration of all these aspects and has rejected the application. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8119 CRP No. 100060 of 2025 10. No grounds are made out warranting interference in the present petition. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14