- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 105 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI G NANJAPPA URUF POLICE NANJAPPA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADURU VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MITHUN G A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAANKANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT ADUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049. 2. SUNIL KUMAR A S/O LATE CHIKKAANKANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT ADUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHYAM PRASHANTHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.08.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.1106/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE REJECTING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 2 RULE 2 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 Shri.Mithun.G.A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.1106 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru Rural District is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application vide Item No.2 filed under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023 A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.1106 of 2020 by the respondents seeking following reliefs in respect of following immovable properties: a) Declare that plaintiffs are the absolute owners and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant or his agents or anybody claiming under him from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. c) For costs and such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.62/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas, situated at Adhuru Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk (earlier Bangalore South Taluk) and bounded on the: East by : Land belongs to Thammaiah; West by : Road; North by : Paramount Public School and land belongs to Nanjundappa; South by: Land belongs to S.Munegowda 4. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement stating that there is a specific finding recorded - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023 in the previous suit in O.S.No.1275 of 2007 and therefore, the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC. 5. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs and by impugned order, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court. 7. Sri.G.A.Mithun, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that when the earlier suit in O.S.No.1275 of 2007 came to be dismissed and a specific finding has been recorded, which has become final by plaintiffs' not appealing against the said judgment, the second suit for the relief of declaration is clearly barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Counsel for respondent remained absent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023 9. Therefore, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, plaintiffs have not suppressed the filing of O.S.No.1275 of 2007. Infact in paragraph No.7 of the plaint, plaintiffs have detailed out as to what happened in the said suit and how the present suit is maintainable by the plaintiffs, specifically mentioning in paragraph No.12 of the plaint about the cause of action which arose on 14.10.2020 as per the plaintiffs. 10. Whether at all, the suit is hit by the Order II Rule 2 of CPC cannot be a subject matter of the discussion at the threshold. 11. Necessarily an issue would be framed by the Court below, in the light of the rival pleadings and if no such issue is framed by the Court, the revision petitioner can resort to Order XIV of CPC. 12. If such an issue is already framed or going to be framed, parties are bound to lead necessary evidence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023 on the said issue and the said issue can be trashed out only at the final hearing of the suit. 13. Accordingly, viewed from any angle this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. Hence the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9