- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46247 CRP No. 26 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 26 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI T Y UDAY KUMAR S/O YEDDIYURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AADHAAR NO.9991 6803 7023 2. SMT. ROOPA UDAY KUMAR, W/O T.Y. UDAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, AADHAAR NO.2615 8658 7957 BOTH RESIDING AT HANUMANTHAPURA LINK ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA 572103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G N NAGARAJ S/O LATE. G.P. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A GANDHINAGARA EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572101 2. SRI. S.C. LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O, CHELUVALAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46247 CRP No. 26 of 2025 3. SMT K.L. KAVITHA, W/O S.C. LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SL.No.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF SAI MAKUTAHARA, HANUMANTHAPURA, LINK ROAD, VIDYANAGARA, TUMAKURU-572103. 4. SRI. S.T. RAJANNA, S/O THIMMALAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OPPOSITE POST OFFICE, BHIMASANDRA, TUMAKURU -572107 5. SRI. S.K. RAGHAVENDRA S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BEHIND SHIVANNA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, GANDHINAGARA, TUMAKURU -572102. 6. SRI. GURUSIDDABASAPPA, S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SIRA GATE TUMAKURU -572 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S B TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2024 PASSED ON IA No.XVII IN O.S.No.488/2019 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE IA NO.XVII FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a), (b) AND (d) OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46247 CRP No. 26 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Sadanand G. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.B. Totad, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Defendants in O.S.No.488/2019 are the revision petitioners challenging the rejection of their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of want of cause of action and limitation. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4. A suit in O.S.No.488/2019 came to be filed by the respondent who was the defendant in O.S.No.477/2017. 5. The plaint in O.S.No.477/2017 was rejected and ultimately the suit was ordered to be tried on merits by order of this Court in RSA No.931/2021, dated 15.04.2024. 6. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the agreement dated 03.05.2016, whereby revision petitioner is entitled for 33.3% and second plaintiff in O.S.No.477/2017 and the respondent in this case are together entitled for 33.4% and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46247 CRP No. 26 of 2025 33.3% for the investment returns in respect of the transaction involved in the agreement dated 03.05.2016. 7. There is a serious dispute with regard to the terms of the agreement and therefore suit in O.S.No.477/2017 came to be filed by the revision petitioner and without making counter claim in the said suit, the respondent herein filed a fresh suit in O.S.No.488/2019 suppressing the pendency of the earlier suit. Therefore according to the revision petitioner, there is no cause of action to the suit and suit is barred by limitation. 8. Learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the respondent dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner inter alia holding in paragraph 13 to 15 as under: “13. Here in this case, Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC is also pressed into service. According to the first defendant, the principles of res-judicata is applicable to this case and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is obvious from the record that there is another suit bearing O.S.No.477/2017 between the plaintiff and defendants. That suit was instituted by the defendants against the plaintiff for partition and such other reliefs. In fact, the said suit is still pending adjudication before this court itself. In order to attract section 11 of CPC, there must be two suits between - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46247 CRP No. 26 of 2025 the same parties and the issue in both suits must be directly and substantially in issue and such issue must have been heard and finally decided by the competent court in former suit. Then only, it amounts to res- judicata in subsequent suit. But, both the present suit and the suit in O.S.No.477/2017 are pending. Under such circumstances, the question of res-judicata does not arise. 14. The learned Advocate for defendant No.1 has argued that the plaint is liable to be rejected as this suit is barred by principle of res-judicata. In this regard, he has cited one judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10946/2014 between the Jamia Masjid V/s Sri.K.V.Rudrappa (Since dead) by Lrs and others. I have read this judgment in detail. In this case, the point that fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was, whether the plea of res-judicata could be decided as preliminary issue. In this regard, it has been held that the the plea of res-judicata may be treated as a preliminary issue when neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question law or fact has been adjudicated for resolving it. 15. In my opinion, the ratio laid down in the supra judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. The reason being that, in this case, the first defendant is not praying the court to frame preliminary issue with regard to plea of res-judicata. Rather, he is seeking for rejection of plaint on the plea of res- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46247 CRP No. 26 of 2025 judicata, which cannot be considered while deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. In a decision cited by the Advocate for the plaintiff reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99 between Srihari Hanuman Das Totala V/s Hemanth Vital Kamath and others, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred the principles of res-judicata as the same is require production of pleadings, issues framed and judgment in previous suit. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, even otherwise, it is clear that the plea of res-judicata is not a ground to invoke Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Hence, on this score also, the plaint cannot be rejected as prayed by the first defendant. For all these reasons, I answer point No.1 in the negative. “ 9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court in this revision. 10. Sri Sadanand G. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that very fact of not whispering anything about the earlier suit in O.S.No.477/2017 in respect of the only transaction between the parties and filing a fresh suit shows that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and the same is also barred by limitation. Those aspects of the matter - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46247 CRP No. 26 of 2025 are not taken note of by the learned trial Judge. Therefore sought for allowing the revision. 11. Per contra, Sri S.B. Totad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there exists a genuine controversy in respect of sharing of the money under the agreement dated 03.05.2016. 14. Further, pendency of O.S.No.477/2017 cannot be disputed by the respondent though he has not stated anything about the pendency of the said suit in the suit O.S.No.488/2019. From the date of agreement the revision petitioner wants to recon the period of limitation and thus sought for dismissal of the rejection of the plaint. 15. Having regard to the inter se dispute between the parties, nature of material evidence that is to be placed by the parties in the trial, the question of limitation cannot be decided by mathematical precision in the case on hand as it is mixed question of law and facts. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46247 CRP No. 26 of 2025 16. Expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter at this stage is totally uncalled for by holding a mini trial as is held in the catena judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court. 17. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that rejection of the application is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. 18. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) All contentions are kept open to be urged in the pending proceedings in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR