- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 342 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. DSK SOUTHREN PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD., INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING OFFICE AT DSK HOUSE, J.M. ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE - 411 005, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, M/S SHORE DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., 2. M/S SHORE DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MANTRI DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.41, MANTRI HOUSE, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU - 01, REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI. GIRISH GUPTA H.S. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. VANDANA P.L, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. R. MANJULA W/O R. KRISHNA KISHORE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.501, MUTHARAYASWAMY LAYOUT, BTM LAYOUT, 6TH STAGE, HULIMAVU, BENGALURU - 560 076. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO.26081/2024 ON THE FILE OF LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-74)., DISMISSING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a), (b) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Vandana P. L., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. Defendants in O.S.No.26081/2024 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 74) are the revision petitioners challenging the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 3.1. Plaintiff claims that she has entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants to purchase the property and the value of the subject matter of the sale was to the extent of Rs.2,50,57,150/- and sum of Rs.20,00,000/- said to have been paid as advance sale consideration. 3.2. Plaintiff first filed the suit for injunction. Later on, suit for specific performance. Present suit is one of specific enforcement of the said agreement to sell. 4. Defendant is contesting the matter by filing written statement and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of CPC. 5. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated 17.03.2025. 6. Same is called in question, in this revision petition on the following grounds: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 The fact narrated above forms certain grounds and hence the same may be treated as part of grounds to avoid repetition. It is submitted that impugned order passed by the Hon'ble LXXIII mayphall unat city coval Count Addl., City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-74) at Bengaluru, rejecting the IA No.3 filed by the Petitioners herein seeking for the dismissal of Plaint is contrary to the law, facts and materials available on records and such, the same is liable to be set aside or dismissed. It is submitted that the present suit is filed for Specific Performance against the Petitioners herein from alienating and encumbering suit schedule B Property. It is a settled principal of law, and the Plaintiff categorically admits that she has not been conveyed with the titles of the property and admittedly she has not paid the agreed sale consideration till date. It is submitted that, the learned Trial judge below had not applied his judicial mind while giving the reasons the Lrnd., Trial Judge simply stated that Defendant has not made out any grounds to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 reject the Plaint hence the application filed is dismissed, the learned Trial Judge has not considered as the Petitioners herein has vehemently argued as the present suit is barred by law as per Order II Rule 2 of CPC but the learned trial judge has overlooked the arguments of the Petitioners and dismissed the application. It is submitted that; the respondent at the time of filing the present suit against the Petitioners herein the suit was barred by the Res-Sub-Judice as the Respondent filed on a same cause of action and subject matter, but the learned civil judge has not applied judicial mind before rejecting the IA No.3. It is submitted that; the Respondent has conveniently stated in her pleadings that the bank has not agreed for the loan quoting that the Petitioner is blacklisted etc., However the said loan was to be credited in favour of the respondent based upon the respondent's eligibility to obtain the loan as the respondent had to pay the EMI's not the Petitioner. It was nothing to do with the Petitioner reputation in the market. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 It is submitted that; the trail court has failed to take note of the fact that the Respondent further committed to the petitioner that she will complete the payment by Sept 2023 and she would do part payment. However, the Respondent failed to pay any part payment and hence on 30th of Sept 2023 itself the petitioners has terminated the contract and called upon the respondent to claim her legally entitled repayment as per the agreement. It is submitted that; the Respondent got an Injunction Order against the Petitioner herein with an unclean-hands. Therefore, the unclean approach not only disentitles her for an Interim relief. In the teeth of the same the interim order granted in ouster of law and owing to misleading committed by the Plaintiff cannot be continued and the present plaint needs to be dismissed. It is submitted that; the learned Trial Court has allowed the IA No.1 which was filed by Respondent herein and the trail court has granted an Interim Order against the Petitioners here till the disposal of the suit. And rejected the IA.No.3 filed by the Petitioners herein without applying the judicial mind before rejecting the application. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 It is submitted that; the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 if the Plaint filed by the respondent continues, the same would be breach of law and will cause serious miscarriage of justice to Petitioners. Hence the Plaint is to be dismissed at the threshold. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge is even otherwise illegal, erroneous and unsustainable and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. The petitioners carve this Hon'ble Court to adduce any further grounds, if any, at the time of hearing of the instant Petition. The Petitioners has not filed any other Petition seeking the similar relieves herein under prayed for and the Petitioners has not left with any other efficacious alternative remedy in matter. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that learned the Trial Judge failed to understand the scope of order VII of CPC especially when there is only a small amount of advance sale - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 consideration was paid and earlier suit being not withdrawn as on the filing of the present suit, suit was hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC. 8. Notice issued earlier returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient address’ and matter is taken up for final disposal as presence of the respondent is not necessary for disposal of the revision petition. 9. The main plank on which application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of CPC came to be filed in the present suit is that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff for bare injunction in respect of the same subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.26671/2023 was pending. Therefore, second suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC. 10. Admittedly, the earlier suit is one for bare injunction and present suit is a comprehensive suit seeking specific enforcement of agreement to sell and therefore, per se Order II Rule 2 of CPC is not applicable to the case on hand. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 11. Moreover, whether the pendency of the earlier suit and filing a subsequent suit was unnecessary in view of the fact that after the notice came to be issued by the revision petitioners, suit for bare injunction came to be filed and therefore, all the reliefs in the earlier suit in O.S.No.26671/2023 should have been claimed cannot be countenanced in law in view of the fact that it is for the plaintiff to choose whether to file a suit for bare injunction or a suit for specific performance. 12. Moreover, there cannot be any unilateral termination of the contract by issuing notice. So if the contention of the revision petitioners that the contract stood repudiated, at the most, it can be a defence in the suit for specific performance and not a ground to seek for rejection of the plaint in the subsequent suit. 13. There was no bar even either to proceed with both the suits in which the case should have been clubbed and decided by the Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47060 CRP No. 342 of 2025 14. Nevertheless, plaintiff has chosen to withdraw the earlier suit and is now proceeding with the suit for specific performance. 15. Therefore, rejection of the application under Order VII Rule VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of CPC is just and proper which requires no interference in the case on hand. 16. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. All contentions are kept open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0