- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46704 CRP No. 209 of 2022 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. 209 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KOLKAR RAVI MARUTHI S/O MARUTHI NAGAPPA KOLKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A NO.616, 6TH CROSS, A-T BLOCK VIJAYANAGAR 3RD STAGE MYSORE - 570 017 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJITH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H M GANGADHARAIAH S/O LATE MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS R/A NO.55 GOWRISHANKAR NAGAR MYSURU OOTY ROAD MYSORE-570025 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PREREET B. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P MAHESHA.,ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN OS.NO.416/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46704 CRP No. 209 of 2022 SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) R/W SEC.151 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 1. Heard Sri. Pradeep H.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Prereet B. Jain for Sri. P. Mahesha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant in O.S. No.416/2020 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed by IV Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), JMFC, Mysore. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46704 CRP No. 209 of 2022 3.1 A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff with the following reliefs in respect of following property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'): 'A' SCHEDULE Land bearing Sy.No.227, measuring 25 guntas out of the total extent of 1 acre situated at Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, bounded on East by : Private Layout, West by : Property belonging to Krishnappa, North by : Remaining portion of Sy.No.277 belonging to the vendors South by : Road. 'B' SCHEDULE Site bearing No.11, Block-A, carved out Sy.No.227 of Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru, measuring East to West : 40 feet and North to South : 40 feet, totally measuring 2800n sq.ft., bounded on East by : Site No.10A, West by : Site No.12A, North by : Private property and South by : 40 feet Road. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity be pleased to pass Judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows: (a) for a declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit 'A' Schedule Property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46704 CRP No. 209 of 2022 (b) for a further declaration that the sale deed dated 24.02.2020 purportedly executed by Ananda Housing cooperative Society in favour of the defendant is null, void, illegal and not binding on the Plaintiff and that the 'B' schedule site does not exist. (c) for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or any other person acting under him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property or from putting up any sort of construction in or upon the 'B' schedule property or from erecting fencing over the same. (d) for a further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the 'B' Schedule property; (e) award costs of these proceedings; and (f) grant such other reliefs as are necessary in the circumstances of the case. 3.2 Defendant pursuant to the suit summons issued in the said suit, entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments inter alia filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46704 CRP No. 209 of 2022 Procedure to reject the plaint by contending that one more suit was already filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.488/2015. 3.3 According to the defendant, second suit is thus barred by law. 3.4 Plaintiff opposed the said application and by impugned order, learned Trial Judge rejected the said application. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented that second suit for the same relief is per se not maintainable. Therefore rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46704 CRP No. 209 of 2022 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment stating that there is cause of action for filing the suits are altogether different and therefore the rejection of the application is just and proper. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the metal on record it is crystal clear that if the second suit is for the same relief and in respect of the same property, Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure would operate in such circumstances and not Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Therefore, rejection of the application filed by the defendant is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46704 CRP No. 209 of 2022 10. Hence, following order : ORDER Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14