- 1 - CRP No. 100096/2025 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.100096 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHRI. CHAMANVALI S/O. BAHADARI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARAPANAHALLI- 583131 TQ. HARAPANALLI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SHRI NAGENDRAPPA S/O. THIPPAMMA AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAPANAHALLI-583131, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR. 2 . SHRI A. NINGAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAPANAHALLI-583131, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR. 3 . SHRI B.H. NINGAPPA S/O. SANNAHALAPPA AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAPANAHALLI-583131, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.26 14:38:12 +0530 - 2 - CRP No. 100096/2025 4 . SHRI O. MANTESH S/O. NEELA NINGAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAPANAHALLI-583131, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR. 5 . SHRI IRANI CHAMAN SAB S/O. DODDA HUSSAINSAB AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAPANAHALLI-583131, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR. 6 . CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY, HARAPANAHALLI-583131 TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS NO.144/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI ON IA NO.IV IN OS NO.144/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED IN IA NO.IV AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - CRP No. 100096/2025 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) 1. The revision petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Harapanahalli, in O.S. No. 144/2020 on I.A. No.4 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, ‘the CPC’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this filing of the appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit in O.S.No.144/2020 for a declaration to declare that the suit schedule boundary open space in the property belonging to defendant No. 3, and to cancel the registration of the municipality for the suit schedule boundary open space for fixing the suit door number, along with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. 4. The defendants have filed an I.A. No.4 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC to reject the plaint on the grounds that the suit is not - 4 - CRP No. 100096/2025 maintainable in law. The suit is filed for a declaration that defendant No.3 is the owner of the suit schedule property. According to the plaint averments, defendant No. 4 is in actual possession of the suit property. The suit is filed by a person who is not in possession, and hence, the defendants sought for the rejection of the plaint. 5. The defendants have filed objections, stating that the suit is filed in public interest, the Court fee paid is proper, and the valuation made is correct. The plaintiff is not a party to the earlier suit. Since the suit is filed in public interest, they argue that the suit is maintainable. 6. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition with costs. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, capricious, and not sustainable in the eye of the law. The trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application by holding that the petitioner has not proved that the suit - 5 - CRP No. 100096/2025 is not maintainable due to lack of cause of action, overlooking the fact that the petitioner had obtained a decree in his favor in O.S. No.75/2009, and the same is well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The petitioner has sought for the allowance of this petition. 8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The trial Court has observed in para 17 of the order that the question of whether the suit property actually belongs to the Municipality and whether the plaintiffs have rights over the suit property or not, has to be ascertained at trial. At this stage, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that there is no right vested in the plaintiffs. On this ground, the trial Court rejected the I.A. No.4 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 10. Upon perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any error, illegality, or infirmity. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 6 - CRP No. 100096/2025 ORDER i. The revision petition is dismissed. ii. The revision petitioner is at liberty to urge all the grounds before the trial Court on merits of the case. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU