- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47659 CRP No. 508 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 508 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G.N. NARSIMHEGOWDA S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. SMT. PUTTALINGAMMMA S/O SRI. G.N. NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SMT. SHEELA D/O SRI. G.N. NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 4. SMT. ASHA S/O SRI. G.N. NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5. SRI. VENKATESH S/O SRI. G.N. NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 6. SMT. MAMATHA D/O SRI. G.N. NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT GUJJEGOWDANAPURA VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORU TALUK - 570 008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. Y.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47659 CRP No. 508 of 2022 AND: SRI. C.N MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 19TH BLOCK BEML LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU - 570 023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DR. PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISHA T.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2022 PASSED ON IS No.3 IN OS No.1159/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU DISMISSING THE IA No.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC. 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.Y.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Dr.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Girisha T. R., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 in O.S.No.1159/2021 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47659 CRP No. 508 of 2022 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) vide I.A.No.3 in the said suit. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4. A suit for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell came to be filed in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit property): “Land bearing Sy.No.55, to the share of G.N.Narasimhegowda measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.56/1 to the share of G.N.Narasimhegowda measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in total 2 acre 14 guntas situated at Gujjegowdanapura village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, bounded on: East by: Land of Chikkavenkategowda and Thimmegowda’s children West by: Road North by: Road South by: Temple” 5. Defendants entered appearance and contented that there is no cause of action to file the suit and suit is barred by time. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47659 CRP No. 508 of 2022 6. An application also came to be filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC for the relief of rejection of the plaint on the aforesaid ground. 7. Plaintiff opposed the said application and by impugned order, learned Trial Judge dismissed the application. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present revision petition. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no suppression of material facts in respect of the earlier notices exchanged between the parties and the relevant factual aspects. 11. In a case of this nature, question of limitation cannot be decided by mathematical precision so as to reject the plaint at the threshold. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47659 CRP No. 508 of 2022 12. As such, the question of whether the suit is barred by limitation or not, needs full-fledged trial and to be thrashed out at the end of the trial. 13. So also the cause of action being the bundle of facts, the plaintiff having not suppressed any material facts and detailed out in the plaint itself as to what made the plaintiffs to file the suit is relevant to be considered and that should also be adjudicated and same should be adjudicated at the end of the trial. 14. Hence, rejection of the application is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. 15. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48