- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44281 CRP No. 246 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. 246 OF 2020 BETWEEN: MUDDU SHETTY 50 YEARS, S/O KARIYANNA SHETTY, KODAVOOR VILLAGE P.O. KRODASHRAMA - 576 106 UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VYASA RAO K.S, ADVOCATE) AND: KALMATH MASJID (SUNNI) PALLIJJIDDA KODAVOOR VILLAGE, P.O. KRODASHRAMA - 576 106 UDUPI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD NIYAZ S, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC. 83(9) OF WAKF TRIBUNAL ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2019 PASSED ON IA.NO.VI IN OS.NO.5/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C PRESIDING OFFICER, WAKF TRIBUNAL MYSURU, REJECTING THE IA.NO.VI FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC. FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44281 CRP No. 246 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Vyasa Rao K.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Mohammed Niyaz S., learned counsel for the respondent. Defendant No.7 in O.S.No.5/2017 on the file of Wakf Tribunal, Mysuru is the revision petitioner challenging the order on I.A.No.VI filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC whereby the said application came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.12.2019. 2. Facts in a nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under: Kalmath Masjid (Sunni) filed a suit against the State of Karnataka and other defendants, including the present defendant, for the relief of declaration that the suit property is the wakf property and certificate of registration dated 10.12.1993 is valid. 3. In the suit, defendant No.7, being alleged possession over the suit property based on Kumki rights, filed written - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44281 CRP No. 246 of 2020 statement and an application contending that the Court at Mysuru has no jurisdiction, so also the issue in the suit is barred by resjudicata. 4. The said application is objected by the plaintiff and the learned Trial Judge, after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the application. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.7 is before this Court in this revision on the following grounds: "That the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. That the Tribunal failed to note that the contentions of the respondent/plaintiff are hit by the principles of resjudicata. That the Tribunal failed to note that the points and issues involved in the present suit are already decided in the earlier suit in O.S.No.61/2000 and R.A.No. 10/2008 and 18/2008. That the Tribunal failed to note that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the issues and contentions canvassed in the present suit. That in any view of the case, the Tribunal failed to consider the legal implication of the findings given in O.S.No.61/2000, R.A.Nos. 10 & 18 / 2008 for holding otherwise on I.A.No. VI." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44281 CRP No. 246 of 2020 6. Sri K.S. Vyasa Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that he may not seriously contest the question of jurisdiction in view of the fact that the Wakf Tribunal at Mysuru has jurisdiction to try the suit, but the suit is hit by the principles of resjudicata and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per Contra, Sri Mohammed Niyaz, learned counsel for the responden/plaintiff, supports the impugned order by contending that the issue of resjudicata is a mixed question of law and fact and the same needs a full-fledged trial and seeks for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of material on record, the question of jurisdiction is not seriously pressed by the petitioner and moreover, the Wakf Tribunal at Mysuru has got jurisdiction in respect of the suit property and therefore, the question of the suit being conducted in the Wakf Tribunal, Mysuru, is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44281 CRP No. 246 of 2020 maintainable and therefore, on that score, the plaint cannot be rejected. 10. The second ground on which the plaint is sought to be rejected is the question of resjudicata. 11. It is a settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that in respect of the plea of resjudicata, it is mixed a question of law and fact and evidence needs to be recorded to thrash out the real controversy on the ground of resjudicata. 12. In other words, it is a trial issue and requires a full- fledged trial. At the most, the revision petitioner, being defendant No.7, at the most can treat the plea of resjudicata and the necessary issue would be raised by the Wakf Tribunal and the same needs to be established by recording the evidence. 13. With these observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plea of resjudicata cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint at the threshold. 14. Hence, following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44281 CRP No. 246 of 2020 ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25