- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.584 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI HARINDRANATH REDDY H K AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE HP KRISHNA REDDY, RESIDING AT 2 AC 712, HRBR 1ST BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 075 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ROHITH FOR SMT.UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. UMASHANKAR H B S/O BALARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SMT GOWRAMMA M W/O UMASHANKAR H B AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. SRI. SUSHMA D/O UMASHANKAR H B AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. SRI. PRAJWAL S/O UMASHANKAR H B AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ALL ARE RESIDING AT Q09, MAA NIVASAM APARTMENTS, VIJAY VIHAR LAYOUT, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 048. AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF #439, 3RD CROSS, NEAR LAKSHMI NARAYANA TEMPLE, HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU -560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT SUNITHA H. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A.No.3 IN O.S. No. 2100/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING I.A No.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE Of CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Rohit, learned counsel for Sri Udita Ramesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Sunitha H. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The revision petitioner is the 36th defendant in O.S No.2100/2023 challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: Respondents being the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S No.2100/2023 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30), with the following prayer in respect of several properties. “Therefore the Plaintiffs therefore prays that this Hon'ble may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree: (a) For the partition and consequent division by metes and bounds of the Schedule property amongst the parties hereto in accordance with law, (b) To identify, quantify and allot to the Plaintiffs their undivided 1/24th and put them in actual possession of their so allotted shares, (c) Declaring that the sale deeds mentioned at paragraph No.16 in which the Sale Deed executed by of the Defendants No.32 to No.38 in favour of the Defendants No.39 to 42 to be declared as null and void and is not binding upon this Plaintiffs as far as their 1/24th share each. (d) Declaring that the Partition Deed mentioned at paragraph No.17 in which the Partition Deed executed between the Defendants No.32 to 38 to be declared as null and void and is not binding upon this Plaintiffs as far as their 1/24th share each. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 (e) Declaring that the Sale deeds Mentioned at paragraph No.18 in which the Sale Deed executed by Defendants No.39 to 42 in favour of the Defendant No.43 to be declared as null and void and is not binding upon this Plaintiffs as far as their 1/24th share each. (f) Declaring that the Sale deeds Mentioned at paragraph No.21 in which the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.43 and 44 in favour of the Defendant No.45 to Defendant No.143 to be declared as null and void and is not binding upon this Plaintiffs as far as their 1/24th share each. (g) Declaring that the Sale deeds Mentioned at paragraph No.28 in which the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.151 in favour of the Defendant No.152 to be declared as null and void and is not binding upon this Plaintiffs as far as their 1/24th share each. (h) Declaring that the illegally mutated revenue records in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties by Defendants No.32 to 162 to be declared as null and void and is not binding upon this Plaintiffs as far as their 1/24th share each. (i) To order the concerned defendants to pay the Plaintiffs their legitimate share of the past mesne profits, as well as current and future mesne profits, the actual amount being as would be quantified by this Hon'ble Court in accordance with law.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 4. 36th defendant claiming to be the grandson of one of the sharers of the family viz., Pilla Reddy entered appearance and straight away of filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide I.A.No.3 to reject the plaint. 5. Plaintiffs opposed the same. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by the impugned Order dismissed the application filed by the 36th defendant inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 as under: “10. On appreciation of the plaint averments, it discloses that Sri.Lakshmaiah Reddy and his brother Sri Pilla Reddy got divided the family properties. Under the said partition the suit schedule properties were fell to the share of Sri. Lakshmaiah Reddy. During his life time, he has executed gift deed dated 18/6/1944 in favour of his son Sri.Hanuma Reddy. Despite Sri.H.P.Krishna Reddy illegally got mutated the katha in his name with respect to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 32 have constituted Hindu undivided joint family and the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties. They being a members of the joint family, they are entitled for legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. Moreover the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not expressly or impliedly barred under any law. Considering all these aspects this court is of the opinion that defendant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 No.36 has not made out bonafide grounds to reject the plaint as prayed in the application. Accordingly, I hold Point No.1 in the Negative. 11. POINT NO.2: In view of the above discussion made on Point No.1, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.3 filed by defendant No.36 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC is hereby rejected.” 6. Being aggrieved by the same, 36th defendant is before this Court in this Revision Petition. 7. Sri Rohith, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that there was an earlier litigation between the parties in O.S No.3038/1995, wherein the status of the plaintiffs has been discussed in detail and plaintiffs have suffered an adverse order. Despite the same, present suit is filed incorporating several other properties resulting in abuse of process of Court as there was no cause of action to file the present suit and the suit prayer is barred by limitation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 8. He further contended that ignoring the said aspect of the matter entertaining the suit again and dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, Smt.Sunitha Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that O.S No.3038/1995 was only a suit for bare injunction. Therefore, dismissal of the said suit confirmed by this Court in RFA No.339/2006 did not take away the right of the plaintiffs in filing the fresh suit in O.S No.2100/2023 and the contention urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that there was a finding against the plaintiffs and suit is barred by limitation cannot be decided at the threshold by holding a mini trial and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. In the case on hand, genealogical tree is placed on record wherein the father of the 36th defendant namely H.P. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 Krishnareddy does not find a place. H.P.Krishnareddy claims that he is the son of Pillareddy. As per the genealogical tree filed along with the plaint name of father of the 36th defendant finds a place as son of one of the sharers namely Pillareddy. 12. In other words, 36th defendant is the grandson of one of the sharers namely Pillareddy. Plaintiffs are claiming under another sharer of common prepositus-Obala Reddy by name Lakshmaiah Reddy. 13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would however contend that Lakshmaiah Reddy and his wife Muniyamma did not have any son and the contention of the plaintiff that Hanuma Reddy was adopted is negated in the earlier proceedings and therefore, very suit is not maintainable. 14. As could be seen from the material on record, the suit in O.S No.3038/1995 was only a suit for bare injunction. The question of the relationship between the Lakshmaiah Reddy and the plaintiffs is to be established by placing necessary evidence on record. If there is already a finding that has been - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 recorded in the earlier suit, defendant No.36 can very well place such material on record and oppose the suit claim. 15. Likewise, question of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the scope of the earlier suit and the present suit, are altogether different and in the case on hand the question of limitation therefore is to be considered as mixed question of law and facts. Copy of the judgment in O.S.No.3038/1995 is not placed on record to prima facie appreciate the contention of revision petitioner. 16. Defendant No.36 is yet to file his defence before the Trial Court to find out what is the stand that he is going to take in opposing the suit trial. 17. At the threshold, holding a mini trial to reject the plaint on the ground of want of cause of action and limitation is thus impermissible as is held in catena of decisions. 18. A suit can be thrown out at the threshold if the suit with regard to the limitation is capable of deciding by mathematical precision. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47850 CRP No. 584 of 2025 19. In the case on hand, having regard to the plaint averments and also having regard to the relationship of plaintiffs as is contented by the plaintiffs which is disputed by the 36th defendant, recording of evidence is necessary. 20. In other words, triable issues would arise after the written statement is filed and it is just and necessary for the parties to go for full-fledged trial to thrash out the real controversies between the parties. 21. As such, dismissal of the application by the Trial Court is just and proper which requires no interference. 22. Thus, the following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59