- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48152 CRP No. 491 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 491 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI J D MANJUNATH S/O LATE DODDAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R./AT JALADAGERE VILLAGE YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANJULA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARISHA A.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI J D SRINIVAS S/O LATE DODDAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SMT. J D CHIKKAMMA W/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SMT. J D THIMMAMMA W/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 4. SMT. J D MANGALAGOWRI W/O LAXMANA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48152 CRP No. 491 of 2022 5. SMT. J D MANJULA W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 6. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE DODDAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF JALADAGERE VILLAGE YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 7. SMT. DODDAMMA W/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.13, 11TH A CROSS, SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 092 8. SRI B NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE C BATTAIAH AGED 71 YEARS ADVOCATE R/O NO. 346, GURUKURPA 11TH MAIN, SRINIVASANAGAR BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU - 560 092 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARUN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48152 CRP No. 491 of 2022 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2021 PASSED ON IA.VIII IN O.S.NO.126/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.VIII FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 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 1. Heard Smt. Manjula for Sri. Harisha A.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Varun for Sri. Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 3. Revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.126/2019, challenging the dismissal of the application filed under vide Item No. 8 under Section 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with cost of Rs.1,000/-. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48152 CRP No. 491 of 2022 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under; 4.1 A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs, Sri. J.D. Srinivasa and others, with the following prayer in respect of following properties: PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiff prays for a judgment and decree against the defendants: a). for Partition and separate possession of plaintiff. legitimate share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds with mesne profits and for mesne profits derived from the plaint schedule properties; b). for declaring that alleged name sake Registered Sale deed dated 28.06.2007, is not binding on the plaintiff; b). for costs and any other reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found to be entitled, as the nature of the case may require. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48152 CRP No. 491 of 2022 Suit Schedule properties: Item No.1: The dry land bearing S. No.127/3A, assessed af Rs.2.03/ measuring 0.36 guntas, out of 1 acre 37 guntos. bounded on the East: Land of Jaladagere Temple, West: Yediyur to Kallur road. North: Muddabettegowda Annalah, South: 0.5% guntas, of G. V. Dasappa & their sons. Item No.2: The dry land in 5.No.32/8, assessed at Rs.1.29/-measuring dry land measuring 14.08 guntas, RCC house. bounded on the East: Chikkalahswamy Temple & others, West: land of Nagaraju mestru, North: Land of Savithramma, South: Jaladagere-Gottikere road. Item No.3: The dry land bearing S.No.16/2, now S.No.16/8, measuring 0.02.12 guntas, assessed at Rs.0.09/-, bounded on the East: Road, West: Narayanirama's son Venkatesh house, North: J. B. Thimmegowda's land, South: Land of J. T. Venktappa's. Item no.4: The dry land bearing S. No.31/2, assessed at Rs. 0.21/-, measuring 0.02 guntas, bounded on the East: Land of J. T. Kumar, West: Land of Thimmegowda, North: Savithramma's koppalu, South: Land of Pramilamma. Item no.5: The dry land bearing S. No.39/2, measuring 1 acre 37 guntas, bounded on the East: Road. West: Land of Putfathimmalah, North: Land of B. Narayanaswamy and South: Land of Venkatappa & Senappa. Item no.6: Kaneshumari no.21/21, measuring 29 x 29 feets. Malige house, bounded on the East: Rajabheedhi, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48152 CRP No. 491 of 2022 West: House of Muddabettaiah Annaiah, North: Land of Thammanna. South: road and Venkategowda's lan. All the item No.1 to 6, are situated at Jaladagere Village Village, yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk. 4.2 Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the relationship; but has taken up a contention that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. 4.3 The same was objected to by the plaintiffs and learned Trial Judge by impugned order considered the rival contentions and dismissed the applications filed by the first defendant inter alia holding in paragraph No.9 to 11 as under : "9. Before going to the contents of the case, it is to note here that the defendants have filed the present application for the second time. Earlier the defendants have filed an application under Order VII rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. The said application was came to be dismissed vide its order dated 12/08/2021. Now the defendants have again come up with the same application on the ground the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit. 10. Further, at the cost of repetition, again this court would like to draw attention on the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Nowhere in the provisions there - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48152 CRP No. 491 of 2022 is scope for dismissal of the plaint on the ground that there is no locus-standi to file the suit. 11. On perusal of the plaint and the cause of action, it makes clear that these provisions are mandatory to be looked into if, the suit is barred by law and does not disclose any cause of action. The defendants have filed this application by stating that the plaintiff has no locus- standi to file the present suit. It is made clear that whether the plaintiff has got locus-standi to file the present suit or not to be looked into at the time of evidence and arguments. At this stage, this court cannot decide as to the question of locus-standi. Further the defendants have contended that the plaintiff has not produced any materials to prove the relationship of the parties. Again at the cost of the repetition it is made clear that at this stage this court cannot decide as to the relationship of the parties. In the present suit, the issues have not been framed. But the defendants have filed the applications under order VII rule 11 of CPC., without any valid reasons. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the first defendant is before this Court in this revision petition. 6. Smt. Manjula, learned counsel representing Sri. A.S. Harish reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the learned Trial Judge failed to note that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and thus sought for the allowing the revision Petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48152 CRP No. 491 of 2022 7. Per contra, Sri. Varun, learned counsel representing Sri. Sachin B.S. supports the impugned order. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, this is the second such application filed by the first defendant. Earlier application filed by the first defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected and the first defendant did not challenge the same. 10. For the second time, the similar application is filed on the ground of locus standi. It is pertinent to note that the want of locus standi is not found as a parameter under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) as a ground to reject the plaint. 11. The relationship having been admitted between the first defendant and the plaintiffs, whether at all the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48152 CRP No. 491 of 2022 plaintiffs can maintain the suit as is filed by them is a matter that requires full fledged trial and it can be sorted out only after the recording of the evidence of the parties. 12. With that observation, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, following order: ORDER Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT-SG