- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45966 CRP No. 290 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 290 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: MAHADEVAMMA W/O CANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT MUDNAKODU VILLAGE, HARAVE HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 128 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADEESH C.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHADEVASWAMY S/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT TARADELE VILLAGE, KOULANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 312. 2. CHANNABASAPPA S/O LATE KADAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 3. SMT. MEENAKSHI Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45966 CRP No. 290 of 2023 D/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 4. SMT. GUNAVATHI D/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 5. SMT. NAGAMMA D/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 6. SMT. SOUBHAGYA D/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT MUDNAKODU VILLAGE, HARAVE HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 128. 7. SIDDAMANGALAMMA D/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, BELACHALVAADI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, NANJANGUD TLAUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 109. 8. PADMAVATHI W/O LATE DEVARAJAPPA AGED BOUT 47 YEARS, 9. T.D. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE DEVARAJAPPA AGED BOUT 32 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45966 CRP No. 290 of 2023 10. NEELAMBIKA D/O LATE DEVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 11. NAGAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 12. SOMASHEKAR S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 13. SURESH S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 14. BASAMMANI D/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 8 TO 14 ARE R/AT TARADELE VILLAGE, KOULANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 312. 15. SHARATH S/O B.N. NAGARAJU AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.170, NEAR SANKARANTHI CIRCLE, 22nd CROSS, HEBBAL MYSURU CITY - 570 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHIMANYA ARJUN DEVAIAH T, ADVOCATE FOR R1; MS. ARPANA S. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R7, R12 TO R14; SRI. ABHISHEK R. HUDDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R10; R2 TO R4, R6, R11 AND R15 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45966 CRP No. 290 of 2023 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2023 PASSED IN I.A.NO.III IN OS.NO.260/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUSDE, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Prabhuswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhimanyu Arjun Devaiah T. learned counsel for the respondents. The present revision petition is filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.260/2022, challenging the validity of the order dated 13.01.2023 on I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. 2. Facts in a nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under: First respondent-Mahadeva Swamy son of Ningappa, filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.260/2022 against Chennabasappa and others inrespect of the following properties: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45966 CRP No. 290 of 2023 "1) ನಂಜನಗೂಡು ಾಲೂಕು, ೊಡೌಲಂ ೆ ೋಬ, ತರದೆ ಾಮೆ ೇದ ಸ!ೆ" ನಂಬ# 94/1 ರ $%&ೕಣ" 3 ಎಕ)ೆ 09 ಗುಂ*ೆ ಜ+ೕ,ೆ -ೆಕುಬಂ.. ಪ0ವ"ೆ : ಸ!ೆ" ನಂ-94/2ರ ಜ+ೕನು ಪ23ಮೆ: 4.ಎ5.ಸುಬ6ಣ7ನ 8ಾಗಪ9 ಮತು& ಕೂಸಪ9 ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು ಉತ&ರೆ: ೆ;ೆ6ಪ<ರದ ೊಡ8ಾಗಣ7 ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು ದ=ಣೆ: ರೆ& 2) ನಂಜನಗೂಡು ಾಲೂಕು, ೊಡೌಲಂ ೆ ೋಬ, ತರದೆ ಾಮೆ ೇದ ಸ!ೆ" ನಂಬ# 94/2 ರ $%&ೕಣ" 1 ಎಕ)ೆ 06 ಗುಂ*ೆ ಜ+ೕ,ೆ -ೆಕುಬಂ. ಪ0ವ"ೆ : ಸುಬ6ಣ7 ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು ಪ23ಮೆ: ಸ!ೆ" ನಂ-94/1ರ ಜ+ೕನು ಉತ&ರೆ: ೆ;ೆ6ಪ<ರದ ೊಡ8ಾಗಣ7 ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು ದ=ಣೆ: ರೆ& 3) ನಂಜನಗೂಡು ಾಲೂಕು, ೊಡೌಲಂ ೆ ೋಬ, ತರದೆ ಾಮೆ ೇದ ಸ!ೆ" ನಂಬ# 103/1 ರ $%&ೕಣ" 5 ಎಕ)ೆ 23 ಗುಂ*ೆ ಜ+ೕ,ೆ -ೆಕುಬಂ.. ಪ0ವ"ೆ : ಪ23ಮೆ ಪ23ಮೆ: >ಾದಪ9 ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು ಉತ&ರೆ : ರೆ& ದ=ಣೆ: 4.ಎ5 ಚನ@ಬಸಪ9 ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು 4) ನಂಜನಗೂಡು ಾಲೂಕು, ೊಡೌಲಂ ೆ ೋಬ, ತರದೆ ಾಮೆ ೇದ ಸ!ೆ" ನಂಬ# 235 ರ $%&ೕಣ" 0.12 ಗುಂ*ೆ ಜ+ೕ,ೆ -ೆಕುಬಂ.. ಪ0ವ"ೆ : ಅಂಕBೆ4C ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು ಪ23ಮೆ : %ದDBೆ4C ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು ಉತ&ರೆ : ಸುಬ6ಪ9 ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು ದ=ಣೆ : Eಾ4 ಸುಬ6ಪ9 ರವರ ಜ+ೕನು 5) ನಂಜನಗೂಡು ಾಲೂಕು, ೊಡೌಲಂ ೆ ೋಬ, ತರದೆ ಾಮೆ ೇದುD, 8 ಅಂಕಣದ ಮ8ೆ Fೊೆೆ Gತ&ಲು ೇದ ಸHI&ೆ -ೆಕುಬಂ.. ಪ0ವ"ೆ: 4.ಎಂ.)ಾಮಪ9 ರವರ ಮ8ೆ ಪ23ಮೆ: ,ಂಗಪ9 ರವರ ಮ8ೆ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45966 CRP No. 290 of 2023 ಉತ&ರೆ: JಾK ,!ೇಶನ ದ=ಣೆ: ರೆ&" 3. The suit was contested by filing written statement inter alia, contending that the suit is barred by resjudicata in view of the fact that the plaintiff, being the fifth plaintiff in O.S.No.3/2012, has suffered decree of dismissal. 4. The learned Trial Judge, after entertaining the objections of the parties, noted the fact of the earlier suit in O.S.No.116/1999 being decreed and the dismissal of O.S.No.3/2012 and dismissed the application filed by the second defendant, inter alia, holding in paragraph Nos.8 to 11, which reads as under: "8. A perusal of the documents produced by the defendant No.2 shows that, there are legal proceedings already decided between parties to the suit, but in plaint there are averments in respect of F.D.P.7/2002 and O.S.No.3/2012 stating that the suit filed for partition was dismissed with an observation that, the schedule properties have been bequeathed and during the lifetime of the testator right cannot be claimed. 9. The learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 6 and 15 argued that, there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is hit by the principles of resjudicata as right of the parties to the suit has already been decided in the earlier suits. Therefore plaint is liable to be rejected. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45966 CRP No. 290 of 2023 10. As per law, a plaint can be rejected where the suit appears from the averments made in the plaint to be barred by any law. In order to reject the plaint, the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction must show that it is barred by any law in force without any doubt or dispute. 11. Here as per the plaint averments the suit is not barred by any law. Apart from that, the defendant No.2 has not stated under what law the suit is barred. Though it is stated that the suit is hit by the principles of resjudicata, the said aspect has to be decided after full dressed trial, because the said principle involves mixed question of law and fact. As regards cause of action for the suit is concerned, the plaintiff has clearly stated the cause of action for the suit in his plaint. Therefore, the point for consideration is answered in the Negative. Hence, the following:- ORDER Order 1.A.III filed by the defendant No.2 under VII Rule 11(a) and (d) C.P.C. is dismissed." 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the second defendant has filed the present revision petition. 6. Sri Prabhuswamy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that after noticing the dismissal of O.S.No.3/2012 wherein the plaintiff in the present suit was also a fifth plaintiff, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the application-I.A.No.3 and should have rejected the plaint. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45966 CRP No. 290 of 2023 7. Per contra, Sri Abhimanya Arjun Devaiah T., learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order by contending that in the plaint itself there is a sufficient cause of action to file present suit. He further argued details as to question of resjudicata, being a mixed question of law and facts, needs to be established during the trial, which requires recording of evidence of the parties and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, the earlier decreeing of the suit in O.S.No.116/1999 and dismissal of O.S.No.3/2012 are not in dispute. In fact, inrespect of the decree that is passed in O.S.No.116/1999, final decree proceeding has also taken place. 10. Despite the said aspect of the matter, the Trial Judge has assigned the proper reasons for proceeding in the suit as aforesaid. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45966 CRP No. 290 of 2023 11. Taking note of the fact that the plea of resjudicata is a mixed question of law and facts, it needs to be thrashed out by placing necessary evidence on the record. 12. Ultimately, if the plaintiff fails in the suit, the defendant can plead for imposition of costs on the plaintiff, including the exemplary costs as is contemplated under Section 35A of the CPC. 13. With that liberty for the second defendant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 14. Hence, the following: ORDER The revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52