- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11140 CRP No. 100124 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100124 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHRI IRANNA S/O. SHANMUKHAPPA KANDIKONDA AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. HOSAPETI ONI, ILKAL TQ. ILKAL, (OLD TALUK HUNAGUND) DIST. BAGALKOTE-587125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. BASAPPA ITAGI AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BASAVA SADAN, SANGMESHWAR NAGAR, MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: MDUDEBIHAL DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586212. 2. SHRI SHEKARAPPA S/O. IRAPPA NAGUR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HUNGUND, TALUK: HUNAGUND DIST: BAGALKOTE-587125. 3. MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION LIMITED BAGALKOTE BRANCH, BAGALKOTE DIST: BAGALKOTE-587125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI SANTOSH KUMAR G. RAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT.) CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Digitally signed by CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Date: 2025.09.09 10:54:18 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11140 CRP No. 100124 of 2024 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HUNGUND, ON I.A.NO.XVII IN O.S.NO.138/2013, BY ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITION TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Petitioner-Sri Iranna who is defendant No.3 before the trial Court, has filed this Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 13.09.2024 passsed on I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.138/2013 filed by defendant No.2 who is respondent No.3 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund. 2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, rank of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the plaintiff who is respondent No.1 herein, has filed a suit against defendants No.1 to 3 for permanent injunction against respondent No.2 restraining from obstructing plaintiff’s peaceful - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11140 CRP No. 100124 of 2024 possession and enjoyment of suit property and also restraining defendant No.2 from alienating the suit property by way of attachment and auction of it to all third persons. 4. Defendant No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed I.A.No.17 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint as suit is barred under section 32F of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and also non-compliance of section 80 of CPC. The plaintiff has filed his written objections to this application. 5. Having heard the arguments, the trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with section 151 of CPC. Defendant No.2-KSFC, who is respondent No.3 in this revision petition, has not questioned the impugned order passed on I.A.No.17 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with section 151 of CPC. However, defendant No.3- Sri Iranna has preferred this revision petition on the ground that the trial Court has gone beyond the scope of application pending before it and has given a finding on the merit of the matter. 6. Sri Shivraj S. Balloli, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner, submits that the observation made by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11140 CRP No. 100124 of 2024 trial Court in the impugned order warrants interference by this Court. He submits that the trial Court has not at all considered the fact that the jurisdiction of the trial Court while adjudicating an application is restricted only to the application on hand and hence the trial Court could not have gone into the main merits of the matter. In addition to that, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has taken several grounds in the Revision petition, he will restrict his arguments only to the extent that, before recording evidence of the parties, the trial Court, in the course of the judgment, at paragraph 11, has expressed that, “thus the judgment that the plaintiff, as bonafide purchaser for value without notice, has purchased the suit property from the defendant No.1. So, now the defendant No.2 cannot say that there is an encumbrance and charge of defendant No.2 over suit property. Thus, defendant No.2 has no right, title or interest either to attach or sale the suit property to some other persons.” The same is not sustainable under law and hence he has sought to expunge the said observation made by the trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11140 CRP No. 100124 of 2024 7. Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-KSFC would submit that the trial Court ought not observed that the plaintiff, as a bonafide purchaser, has purchased the property without recording the evidence. Further, he would submit that the trial Court has also committed an error in observing that the defendant No.2 cannot say that there is an encumbrance of charge of defendant No.2 over the suit property and that the defendant No.2 has no right, title or interest either to attach or to sell the suit schedule property to a third party. Accordingly, he sought for modification to that extent. 8. Learned Counsel for plaintiff who is respondent No.1 herein, has no objection to delete the observation made by the trial Court in that regard. 9. I have examined the materials placed before me. The trial Court, in the course of judgment in paragraph 14 running at page 11, has observed as follows: “…Thus the plaintiff as a bonafide purchaser for value without notice has purchased the suit property from the defendant No.1. So, now the defendant No.2 cannot say that there is an encumbrance and charge of defendant No.2 over suit property. Thus defendant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11140 CRP No. 100124 of 2024 No.2 has no right, title or interest either to attach or sell the suit property to some other persons.” (emphasis supplied) 10. It is settled principle of law that while adjudicating the application under order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, provides of rejection of plaint, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Without recording the evidence, the Court cannot give a finding to the effect that the plaintiff, as a bona fide purchaser has purchased the suit property, and the defendant No.2 cannot say that there is an encumbrance and charge of defendant No.2 over the property and the defendant No.2 has no right, title or interest either to attach or sell the suit property to a third party. Admittedly, the trial Court has framed issues on the basis of pleadings and documents. When the Court has framed issues, without recording evidence and providing opportunity to the parties to submit their arguments, the trial court ought not to have observed as stated supra. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11140 CRP No. 100124 of 2024 O R D E R i) Revision petition is allowed in part; ii) The observation made by the trial court in the impugned order that “thus the plaintiff as a bonafide purchaser for value without notice has purchased the suit property from the defendant No.1. So, now the defendant No.2 cannot say that there is an encumbrance and charge of defendant No.2 over suit property. Thus defendant No.2 has no right, title or interest either to attach or sell the suit property to some other persons. ” is expunged; iii) It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case; iv) The trial court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law without being influenced by the portion of observation made at page 11 of its judgment stated supra while adjudicating the matter in dispute on merits; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11140 CRP No. 100124 of 2024 v) Except of the aforesaid portion of the impugned order passed by the trial court being expunged, the other portion of the order of the trial Court is upheld and confirmed; vi) Registry to send the copy of the order to the trial Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MRK-para 1 to 5. LNN-para 6 to end. CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45