- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11716 CRP No. 100086 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100086 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. MANDAKINI W/O. SHANKAR DATEKAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. CHIGULE, TQ.KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI- 591345. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI GUNAJI S/O. VISHNU CHOUGULE AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIGULE, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI- 591345 …RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO CALLED FROM THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KHANAPUR IN RESPECT OF OS NO.70/2017 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KHANAPUR ON IA NO.VI IN OS NO.70/2017 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION AND SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.17 12:56:42 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11716 CRP No. 100086 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 115 of the CPC to set aside the order dated 10.06.2025 passed on I.A.no.VI in O.S.No.70/2017 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 3. The petitioner, who is defendant in O.S.no.70/2017 had filed I.A.No.VI under Order-VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint, as no cause of action arose to file the suit and the suit is barred by law. The trial Court has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary, capricious and same is without application of judicial mind. The suit is barred under Section 62 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and there is no cause of action for this suit. On all these grounds sought for allowing of this petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11716 CRP No. 100086 of 2025 5. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The copy of plaint in O.S.No.70/2017 produced by the petitioner reveals that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property Sy.No.35/B measuring 3 acre 3 gunta situated within the limits of Chigule village of Khanapur Taluka in Belagavi district out of that extent, the plaintiff is owner of 1 acre 33 gunta. In paragraph No.5 of the plaint, it is stated that the cause of action arose for the suit on 15.03.2017 and threatened the plaintiff and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and which is continued till today. Since the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration in respect of the suit property, the provision of Section 62 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is not applicable to the case on hand. The trial Court in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of its order has observed as under : “6. Point No.1: Defendant filed this application to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action and suit is barred by under law applicable to the facts of the case. Defendant does not stated, under which law, plaint is required to be rejected. Mere saying plaint is barred under some law cannot be ground to reject the plaint. Defendant should be particular regarding specific law. In this case, defendant has not stated particular of law which barred to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11716 CRP No. 100086 of 2025 entertain the suit. Hence, grounds taken by defendant cannot be accepted. 7. Further, it is well settled that, plaint shall be rejected only considering averments of plaint. It is not allowed to looking into the contents of written statement while deciding rejection of plaint. As per the plaint, plaintiff is the owner and he is in possession of suit property by virtue of order of Tahasildar passed in LGK/NCR/344/91- 92. Further as per plaint, cause of action is arose on 15.03.2017, when defendant trying to dispossess the plaintiff from suit property. In my opinion, plaint does contain cause of action. Hence, the grounds taken by defendant to get rejected the plaint are not to be accepted. Hence, in my opinion, there are no grounds to reject the plaint. Hence, I inclined to answer point No.1 in the negative.” 6. The trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record in accordance with law and facts; I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54