- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48310 CRP No. 70 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 70 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. MR D RAJASHEKARA SHETTY S/O CHADNRASHEKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KAMBALADDA HOUSE KOILA VILALGE AND OST BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211 REP BY GPA HOLDER MR CHADNRASHEKARA SHETTY S/O LATE THYAMPANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R//AT KAMBALADDA HOUSE KOILA VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. SHANTHALA S. BHAT W/O DINAKARA BHAT AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R//AT KAMBALADDA HOUSE KOILA VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHEERAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48310 CRP No. 70 of 2023 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 PASSED ON IA.NO.VII IN OS.NO.287/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL.D.K, REJECTING THE IA.NO.VII FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. V.R. Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Dheeraj for Sri. O. Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.287/2012 is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the Order of rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48310 CRP No. 70 of 2023 3.1 Respondent being the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming the right of easement by necessity in respect of 'B' Schedule property which reads as under: PLAINT 'B' SCHEDULE PROPERTY Description of the easementory right of roadway 'RRR' situated in Koila Village of Bantwal Taluk Mud road way width of 12 feet starts form tar road in S.No.1132/1 then running in S.No.132/1, S.No.132/2 and S.No.26/1B and 26/1A of Koila Village and which is more fully shown in the annexed plaint rough eye sketch as 'RRR' and shown in green colour. 3.2 Defendant after entering the appearance contended that the defendant is in enjoyment of 'B' Schedule Property as his own property prior to the purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff. Therefore, such a suit as against the defendant is impermissible as the plaintiff knowing fully well that there is no access to his property, has purchased the property and thus sought for rejection of the plaint. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48310 CRP No. 70 of 2023 3.3 Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff on the said application, dismissed the said application on the ground that the defence raised by the defendants needs to be considered during the trial. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before the same. 5. Sri. V.R. Prasanna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the trial Judge did not appreciate the fact that the plaintiff knowing fully well that there is no access to his property, purchased the suit property and now cannot claim right of way in the property of the defendant and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48310 CRP No. 70 of 2023 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, right of easement by necessity is a matter that needs the needs to be adjudicated and whether at all the plaintiff has got alternate way (road) nor how his vendor was enjoying the property are all matters which needs to be established by placing necessary evidence on record. 9. Such an issue cannot be decided by holding a mini trial at the threshold while entertaining the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Same has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the application which requires no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48310 CRP No. 70 of 2023 11. Accordingly, the following Order: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) No Order as to costs. (iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT-SG