- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46789 CRP No. 295 of 2021 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. 295 OF 2021 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O M. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. SRI. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O H. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. SRI.DINESH KUMAR S/O H. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. SMT.MANJULA D/O H.GOVINDAPPA W/O LEPAKSHI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 5. SRI.VASANTHA KUMAR S/O H.GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT 2ND YALAKAPPANAHATTY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46789 CRP No. 295 of 2021 AND: 1. SRI S. THIMAPPA @ THIMMANNA S/O Y.H.SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. SRI. S. LOKESH S/O Y.H. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT 2ND YALAKAPPANAHATTY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 5. THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, HOSADURGA - 577 527 6. SRI.SRI.SRI.PURUSHITTHAMANANDA PURI MAHA SWAMIGALU BHAGEERATHA PEETA, BRAHAMAVIDYA NAGARA, MADHURE POST, KASABA HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46789 CRP No. 295 of 2021 HOSADURGA TALUK - 577 526 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R3 TO R5 R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.04.2021 PASSED ON IA.NO.IX IN OS.NO.104/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE JMFC., HOSADURGA, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.IX FILED UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 1(a) AND (b) OF CPC., AND THE PLAINTIFFS ARE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW THE PRESENT SUIT WITH LIBERTY TO FILE FRESH SUIT ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C. Gopalakrishnaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46789 CRP No. 295 of 2021 2. Defendants in O.S.No.102/2013 are the legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent are the revision petitioner challenging the Order passed on application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure which was numbered as I.A.No.9. 3. In fact, earlier, the very same petitioners approached this Court in CRP No.217/2015 questioning the allowing of the application. A co-ordinate bench of this Court by Order dated 24.11.2020 set-aside the Order by the Trial Court and remitted the matter to the Trial Court to assign proper reasons as to what are the technical defects which would go to the very root of the matter and denying the relief to the plaintiff and then pass an Order afresh in accordance with law. 4. Despite such directions, learned Trial Judge again allowed the application inter alia holding in Paragraph 17 of the impugned order are as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46789 CRP No. 295 of 2021 "17. Over all looking into the pleadings of the plaintiffs with the documents produced by the plaintiffs by keeping into the dictum of the decisions stated supra and there is consistency in the pleadings and the facts and if the plaintiffs continue with the suit the suit would fail by the reason of defect in the pleadings and materials produced by the plaintiffs. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiffs to withdraw the present suit with the liberty to file fresh suit on the sub matter of suit or part of the claim. In view of the delay in the filing of the I.A.No.IX and thereby the defendant No.4(a) to (e) have borne the litigation expenses and as such the plaintiffs are liable to pay the cost to the defendants as litigation expenses. Accordingly, this court answers point No.1 in the Affirmative." 5. Sri. B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel for revision petitioners submits that despite the directions given by this Court in CRP No.217/2015, the Trial Court has committed the same error in the impugned order as well and therefore the order needs to be set-aside and suit is to be dismissed. 6. Per contra, Sri. Gopalakrishnaswamy would contend that the plaintiffs have emphasized before the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46789 CRP No. 295 of 2021 Court as to what are the technical reasons, but it is the mistake of the Court in not properly culling out the technical reasons on which this case would fail and therefore sought for remitting the matter to the Trial Court to pass fresh Order whereby the technical reasons on which the plaint would fail would be furnished by the plaintiff in writing which can be considered by the Court and suitable Orders can be passed. 7. Sri. B.M. Siddappa in reply would contend that if such technical reasons are pointed out, revision petitioners may also be given the opportunity to have their response to such reasons. 8. Having heard the both sides, this Court is of the concerned opinion that when there is already an Order passed by this Court in CRP No.217/2015, it was the bounden duty of the Trial Court to list out the technical reasons on which the suit would fail and then exercise the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46789 CRP No. 295 of 2021 power under Order XXIII Rule 1 (a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and pass appropriate Orders. 9. Without carrying out such an exercise, passing an Order slightly in different language and words would not be sufficient compliance of the directions of this Court in CRP No.217/2015. 10. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 15.04.2021 passed on I.A.No.IX in O.S.No.104/2013 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, JMFC, Hosadurga, allowing the IA No.IX filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure is set-aside. (iii) However, it is made clear that the plaintiff shall list out the technical reasons seeking - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46789 CRP No. 295 of 2021 withdrawal of the suit and to retain the cause of action to file fresh suit in writing. (iv) If any such reasons are listed out by the plaintiff, contesting defendant is also permitted to have their say on those points and thereafter let the Trial Judge to pass fresh orders on IA No.9 in accordance with law. (v) Taking note of the fact that the matter is of the year 2013 reconsideration of the application shall be in a time bound manner and not later than 31.01.2026. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41