- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12742 CRP No. 100066 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100066 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. NOORMOHAMMMAD S/O. GUDUSAB NIDONI AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE , R/O. TODALABAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. 2. UMARSAB S/O. GUDUSAB NIDONI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TODALABAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAHEMATBI W/O. RAFIQ HUNDEKAR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLDWORK, R/O. TODALABAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. 2. SMT. MUMATAZBEGAUM W/O. ALLABAX BIRADAR AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TODALABAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. 3. SMT. BULANBI W/O. MALIKSAB BALLUR AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GALAGALI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 117. Digitally signed by CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.25 16:07:46 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12742 CRP No. 100066 of 2023 4. SMT. MAIMUNA W/O. RAJAKSAB BALLUR AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GALAGALI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKT 587 117. 5. SMT. MAHABOOBI W/O. GUDUSAB NIDONI AGE: 87 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TODALABAGI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST-BAGALKOT-587 301. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE OREDR DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, JUDGE, JAMKHANDI ON IA NO. 4 IN OS NO.101/2021 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 / PETITIONERS AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12742 CRP No. 100066 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) 1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The revision petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the order dated 07.12.2022 passed on I.A. No.4 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S. No.101/2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No.101/2021 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. 5. The petitioners, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2, filed their written statement in O.S. No.101/2021 denying the plaint averments and sought dismissal of the suit. However, in the written statement, it is contended by the petitioners that the suit property is an Inam land, which was re-granted to Gudusab in 1969. During the lifetime of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12742 CRP No. 100066 of 2023 Gudusab, a family partition was effected between defendants 1, 2, and 6 vide M.E. No.4101, which was certified in 1984. It is further contended that there had been a partition in the family of the petitioners prior to 1994, which has never been challenged, and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and devoid of cause of action. 6. The petitioners filed an application in I.A. No.4 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date of death of Gudusab on 09.05.1994, as succession under Mohammedan Law opens upon the death of the propositus. Hence, according to the petitioners, the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff has no cause of action. 7. The plaintiff filed a statement of objections to I.A. No.4 contending that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. It was further contended that the defendants are required to show that, prior to certification of M.E. No.4101, the plaintiff was notified by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12742 CRP No. 100066 of 2023 the authority, and that despite receiving such notice, the plaintiff remained silent. The defendants have not produced any documentary evidence to establish that the plaintiff was a party to the partition. Moreover, there is no specific section or article in the Limitation Act prescribing that, after succession opens under Mohammedan Law, a suit must be filed within a fixed period, failing which the claim is barred. On these grounds, the plaintiff sought rejection of the application. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC on the ground that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which requires trial. 9. I have examined the materials placed before me. I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12742 CRP No. 100066 of 2023 ORDER i. The petition is dismissed. ii. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No.4 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC is also dismissed on merits. iii. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40