- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47554 CRP No. 507 of 2024 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.507 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAGARAJAN, S/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI RANGASHAMAIAH, S/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 R/AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBII, BANGALORE NORTH TQ, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, NELAMANGALA – 562162 3. SRI. S.C. PADAMAIAH, S/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT #6084, SUBASHNAGAR, SOMJI RAO LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA – 562123 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M S ASWATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S.C. CHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 83, 3RD CROSS, SHARADHA NAGAR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, G.K.V.K POST, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47554 CRP No. 507 of 2024 BANGALORE - 560 065 2. SRI. JAYARAMAIAH, S/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT NELAMANGALA – 562 162 3. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O H.M. SADASHIVAIAH, D/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT HULIKAL VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562120 4. SMT PRAMEELA, W/O VEERARAJU, D/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT #5065, “BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA” VIJAYANAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT NELAMANGALA – 562123 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.06.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.19 IN O.S.No.48/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE IA NO.19 FILED UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47554 CRP No. 507 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri M.S. Ashwath Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 2. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the revision petitioners challenging the validity of rejection of item No. 19 filed under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are asunder. 3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.48/2010 with the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, the plaintiff humbly prays that this Hon'ble court for judgment and decree of partition and separate possession and enjoyment of plaintiff's legitimate share in the suit schedule properties as follows:- (a) Divide the plaintiff and 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties with meets and bounds, (b) Consequently put the plaintiff in peaceful possession of his legitimate share (c) Grant the means profits” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47554 CRP No. 507 of 2024 (d) Grant such other relief and relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the above said facts and circumstances of the case with costs in the interest of justice, equity and law.” 4. Defendant filed written statement inter alia making few admissions. 5. Based on the said admission an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC came to be filed for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by acting under the powers vested in the Court under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The said application was opposed by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 and learned trial Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties on the said application, dismissed the application in inter alia holding in paragraphs 5 and 6 which reads as under: “5. The suit is for partition and separate possession wherein suit was decreed on 28.08.2013 and against the same the defendants No.1 and 4 have preferred appeal in 'RA No.238/2013' which came to be remanded Vide Judgment dated 30.01.2017 with direction to this court to provide opportunity to defendants No.1 and 4 to cross examine PW1 and to permit them to lead evidence and in view of specific direction of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47554 CRP No. 507 of 2024 appellate court this court has no option except to provide opportunity to defendants No.1 and 4 to lead evidence and to cross examine PW1 and 2 and for that reason without same this court cannot pass any Judgment. 6. Further now the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 have filed IA No.19 under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC to pass Judgment based on admission, but however the affidavit averments goes to show that only the plaintiff No.1 has admitted the case of plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and not defendants, but as per the affidavit averments itself it is clear that the defendant No.1 is claiming some of suit schedule properties to be self acquired properties and for that reason there is no unequivocal admission by the defendants and for that reason order 12 Rule 6 of CPC has no application and apart from that it is pertinent to note that there are disputed facts which has to be decided only after recording evidence.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this court. 8. Sri M.S. Ashwath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that when there is an unequivocal admission in the written statement, the only course that was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47554 CRP No. 507 of 2024 available to the trial Court was to decree the suit by acting on the unequivocal admission and rejecting the I.A.No.19 has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 9. This Court did not deem it to issue notice to the respondents in view of the issue to be trashed out in the present revision petition. 10. Having heard the counsel for petitioners, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. What is the admission that has been made by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in their written statement is spelled out in the paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order of the trial Court as referred to supra. 12. In a suit for partition, such an admission cannot be taken note for decree the suit as prayed for by exercising power under XXII Rule 6 of CPC. It is for the parties to work out their remedy by placing necessary evidence. At the most, plaintiff can take advantage of the admission insofar as proving the particular issue in the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47554 CRP No. 507 of 2024 13. As such, rejection of the application is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. 14. Taking note of the fact that suit of the plaintiffs is of the year 2010 and that too for the relief of partition, if the trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing ends of justice would be met. 15. With the above observations following Order is passed: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) However, the trial Court shall expedite the suit and dispose of the same as early as possible, but not later than 30th June 2026. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR