- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11494 CRP No. 100090 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100090 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. KADEKOLA MALLAIAH @ HULIKUNTE MALLAIAH AGE 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. MADAKALA KATTE VILLAGE, TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR, HOSPETH-583135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALURU-560001. 2. THE TAHASILDAR KUDLIGI TALUKA, KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-HOSPETH- 583135. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR NADA KACHERI, GUDEKOTE, TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR, HOSPETH- 583135. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR GUDEKOTE HOBLI, NADA KACHERI OFFICE, GUDEKOTE, TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR, HOSPETH- 583135. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.09.19 15:12:40 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11494 CRP No. 100090 of 2025 5. SMT. PALAMMA W/O. DODDABASANNA AGE 62 YEARS. OCC. AGRICULTURE 6. SRI. MAHANTESH S/O. DODDABASANNA AGE 26 YEARS. OCC. AGRICULTURE 7. SRI. SANNABASANNA S/O. PALAIAH @ KOTE PALAIH AGE 58 YEARS. OCC. AGRICULTURE RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO 7 ARE R/O. MADAKALA KATTE VILLAGE, GUNDAMANUGU PANCHAYATH GUDEKOTE HOBLI, TAL. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR- 583135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO III, IN O.S.NO.235/2022 DATED 18.07.2025 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KUDLIGI AND ALLOW THE SAID IA NO, III AS PRAYER FOR IN THE SUIT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 4. 2. Heard arguments. 3. Smt. Lakshmamma-Defendant No.5 in OS No.235 of 2022, has preferred this revision petition against the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi (for short “the trial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11494 CRP No. 100090 of 2025 Court”) on IA.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Facts leading to this petition are that the defendant No.5 has filed application under order VII Rule 11(d) read with section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to dismiss the suit as barred by principles of resjudicata. It is stated in the affidavit that the sons of Sanna Boraiah had filed suit for partition in OS No.100 of 2000 with respect to schedule properties against sons of Maraiah and legal heirs of Dodda Basanna and one Sanna Basanna, and the husband of defendant No.5. The schedule in the present suit and OS No.100 of 2000 are one and the same. In the suit, while answering issue No.4, it was observed that the suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties and it was further observed that the father-in-law of defendant No.5 i.e. Palaiah, is the owner of suit properties and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff in OS No.100 of 2000 preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court in RA No.45 of 2007 which came to be dismissed. The same not being challenged, the judgment passed in RA No.45 of 2007 has attained finality. The record of rights is standing in the name of father-in-law of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11494 CRP No. 100090 of 2025 defendant No.5. After his death, the mutation is changed in the name of the husband of defendant No.5 on the basis of pouthi varasa. The husband of defendant No.5 died on 19th April, 2020. The defendant No.5 has filed an application on the basis of pouthi varasa. Though plaintiffs herein are not having any right in the suit properties, but are objecting the same and have filed the present suit. Plaintiffs hearing were defendants 3 and 4 in the previous suite, i.e. OS No.100 of 2000 and the plaintiffs are seeking relief of declaration; whereas in OS No.100 of 2000, it is already decided that the father-in-law of defendant No.5 is the owner of suit schedule properties. The issue regarding declaration is already decided and as such, the question of deciding the issue of declaration, for the second time, does not arise. Therefore, it is stated that the suit is barred by principles of resjudicata. On all these grounds, it was sought to reject the plaint by allowing the Application. 5. Plaintiffs filed objection to the Application, denying the averments made in the Application and contended that the present suit is filed for declaration, whereas the alleged OS No.100 of 2000 was filed for partition. The Patta is in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11494 CRP No. 100090 of 2025 custody of the plaintiffs and it was granted in the name of Palaiah @ Kote Palaiah, who is the father of plaintiff No.3. The suit is very much maintainable as the relief sought in the present suit and the one sought in OS No.100 of 2000, are completely different. The defendant No.5 has filed written statement taking clear contention regarding resjudicata. However, defendant No.5 has filed the Application directly which is not maintainable and is liable for dismissal. On all these grounds, it was sought for dismissal of the Application. 6. I have perused the material placed before me. At paragraphs 9 to 11 of the judgment, the trial Court has observed as under: “09. In this case, it is pertinent to note that the defendant No.5 has filed the pleadings, evidence and judgment in O.S.no100/2000. The said suit is filed against the plaintiffs herein for the relief of partition. In the said suit, the plaintiffs herein who were the defendants in O.S.No.100/2000 have also sought for share in the said suit. 10. On perusal of the judgment in O.S.No.100/2000, it appears that the defendant No.5's father-in-law is defendant No.5 in O.S.No.100/2000. It - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11494 CRP No. 100090 of 2025 appears that the said suit was dismissed and it was observed while answering issue No.4 that the suit schedule properties are the properties of defendant No.5's father-in- law. 11. Now the question is whether the present suit is barred by resjudicata in view of the judgment in O.S.No.100/2000. In this regard, it is settled law that it is only the plaint averments which has to be considered while disposing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is equally settled that the court cannot look into the defense of the defendants while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Now when the plaint pleadings are considered, there is no averment regarding the previous suit between the parties. Therefore, it can be held that the suit is not barred by the principles of resjudicata. This court relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799 in Civil Appeal No.5841/2023 between Keshav Sood vs Kirti Pradeep Sood and others in that regard. In the above case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in order to determine the rejection of the plaint on the grounds of resjudicata under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the court has to go beyond the plaint pleadings which is not permissible under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of resjudicata. The principles laid down in the above decision are rightly applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the application of the defendant No.5 is to be rejected and point No.1 is answered in the Negative.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11494 CRP No. 100090 of 2025 7. The trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and rejected the application. On 12th July, 2022 the petitioner has filed application IA.III under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. The trial Court has passed the order on the said application on 18th July, 2025. The respondent has filed written statement on 23rd October, 2024, in which he has taken contention that the suit is liable to be dismissed as it is hit by principles of resjudicata. Hence, proper issues will have to be framed by the trial Court and after framing of proper issues, the trial Court has to dispose of the case in accordance with law. At this stage, without framing proper issues regarding principle of resjudicata, it is not possible to consider the IA filed by the defendant No.5. I do not find any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. In the result, Revision Petition is dismissed. Registry to send the copy of this order to the trial Court for reference. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 48