- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100154 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITA W/O GOPAL DESHAPANDE, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. O-605, BALAJI ANGAN, SECTOR-3, KHARAGAR, NEW MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA-410 210. 2. SMT. VASUDA D/O GOPAL DESHAPANDE, AGE. 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER MINOR GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.1. 3. SMT. GEETA W/O SRIRAM DESHAPANDE, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. O-605, BALAJI ANGAN, SECTOR-3, KHARAGAR, NEW MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA-410 210. … PETITIONERS (BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. ANANT NARAYANRAO DESHAPANDE, AGE. 83 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED OFFICER, R/O. AINAPUR, TQ. KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.23, SRIRAM NAGAR, SINDOLI ROAD, MUTTAGE, DIST. BELAGAVI-590 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR SOLE RESPONDENT) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.09.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, ATHANI, IN REJECTING I.A. NO.II FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 R/W 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 01.09.2023 rejecting the petitioner’s application in I.A.No.II in O.S.No.76/2022, on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Athani, filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that defendants in O.S. No.76/2022 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Athani, moved an application to reject the plaint on the premise that the suit is time barred and there is no cause of action, and the cause of action shown is fictitious. However, the trial Court has not appreciated the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 contentions in proper perspective and rejected the application. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the suit property bearing Survey No.161/1 measures 14 acres 5 guntas out of total extent of 28 acres 10 guntas and in the said 28 acres and 10 guntas, 7 acres and 14 guntas is kharab. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that in the year 1982 there was a partition in the family of plaintiff and defendants and in the said partition, the suit property is allotted to the share of the defendants' father-in-law and mutation is certified based on the said partition. 5. The plaintiff in the pleading has stated that there was a repeated request during the lifetime of the defendant's father-in-law to change the property records of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff and the property records are not changed. The suit is filed in the year 2022 on the premise that the defendants interfered in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 the plaintiff's possession. Thus, it is urged that the suit is time barred and the cause of action shown in the plaint is a fictitious cause of action, and the plaint is nothing but a clever drafting to overcome the stale claim. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent would contend that the cause of action arose on 10.03.2022 and the suit is filed within 3 years from the date of cause of action. The suit is for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff is allotted share in the suit property in the partition of 1982. However, the name of the plaintiff was not recorded in the property records and when the request was made to enter the name of the plaintiff in the property records, the defendants and their predecessor went on assuring that entry would be made and later, they started interfering in the plaintiff’s possession in 2022. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 8. The plaint can be rejected provided there are grounds to reject the plaint, as enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The averments made in the plaint are the guiding factors to decide whether the plaint has to be rejected or not. Limitation is one of the grounds available to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The suit is one for declaration of title and injunction. The limitation to file a suit for declaration of title is 3 years from the cause of action. 10. In the plaint it is stated that partition took place in the family in the year 1982, and in the said partition, properties were allotted to the shares of Mahipathirao, Plaintiff-Anant, and Muralidhar Panditrao Deshpande. The plaintiff pleads that Survey No.161/2 measuring 14-acres 5- guntas out of 28-acres 10-guntas was allotted to his share, and the remaining 14-acres 5-guntas was allotted to the share of Mahipathirao. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 11. The averments in the plaint would indicate that the plaintiff has been requesting his brother Mahipathirao to enter the plaintiff's name in the property records of Sy.No.161/1 to the extent of 14-acres 5-guntas. However, Mahipathirao did not make any attempt to change the property records. Then, the children of Mahipathirao were requested to make the changes in the property records after the death of Mahipathirao, but they have not co-operated. It is also stated in the plaint that even Mahipathirao, in his lifetime, did not file an application to enter the name of the plaintiff in the property records for Sy. No.161/1 to the extent of 14-acres 5-guntas. 12. Mahipathirao died on 14.04.1983, though such a statement is not made in the plaint, this fact is not disputed. The averments in the plaint would indicate that Mahipathirao declined to heed the request of the plaintiff, who wanted his name to be entered in the property records of the suit property, during the lifetime of Mahipathirao. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 After the death of Mahipathirao, again his children did not heed to the request of the plaintiff. 13. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the cause of action arose when Mahipathirao was alive, and the cause of action shown in paragraph No.4 of the petition that it arose on 10.03.2022, is not a real cause of action in the eye of law. 14. It is also relevant to notice that the trial Court dismissed the application on the premise that there was no prayer to reject the plaint. It is a well-settled position of law that the form of the application is not the criteria; it is the content of the application that is the criteria; from the application filed by the plaintiff, it can be safely held that the application is to reject the plaint and not to dismiss the suit. 15. Even if it is considered as a prayer to dismiss the suit, then such prayer is to be construed as a prayer to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 dismiss the suit by rejecting the plaint. Thus, the contention that the prayer is defective is also not tenable. 16. Though it is a well-settled position of law that only the plaint averments are to be looked into while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, recently the Apex Court has held that the plaint documents can also be looked into while considering application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. 17. Though the plaintiff has not referred to the mutation pursuant to the partition which took place in 1982, the partition is referred to in the plaint, and the mutation entry produced before the Trial Court would indicate that the mutation was certified after service to all concerned parties. Since the mutation was certified in the year 1982, the plaintiff has not chosen to challenge the mutation or claim his right over the suit property and the fact that the property records are not in his name was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, which is very much apparent - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 from the averments made in the plaint itself. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint at two places that he requested the deceased Mahipathirao, during his lifetime, to make changes in the property records and Mahipathirao did not heed to the said request. Mahipathirao died in the year 1983. Thus, the suit is time-barred. 18. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff's suit is time-barred, and the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application for rejection of the plaint. Hence, the following; ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 01.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Athani, on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.76/2022, is set-aside. iii. The application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15241 CRP No. 100154 of 2023 The plaint in O.S.No.76/2022, on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Athani, is rejected. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43