- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44883 CRP No. 153 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 153 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S V NAGESH @ NANJUNDEGOWDA S/O LATE VASUDEVAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. SHRI S.V.SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE VASUDEVAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. S.V.SUBRAMANI S/O LATE VASUDEVGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT GOLLAHALLI, ABBUOLODU POST BASETTIHALLI HOBLI SIDLAGATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101 PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE PERMANENTLY R/O SHETTYHALLI VILLAGE MEDIHALLI POST, VEMGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK - 563 101 4. SMT. S.V.SHAKUNTHALA W/O VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44883 CRP No. 153 of 2022 R/O GOLLAHALLI, ABBUOLODU POST BASETTIHALLI HOBLI SIDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101 5. SMT. KALAVATHI S.V. W/O VENKATEGOWDA @ CHINNI R/O NANDI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, AND DISTRICT - 562 101 …PETITIONERS (BY MS. MONISHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. DEVEGOWDA S.G. S/O LATE S.A. GUDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. SRI. S.G. ANNEGOWDA S/O LATE S.A. GUDEGOWDA 3. SRI. S.G. SATISH S/O LATE S.A. GUDEGOWDA R1 TO R3 ARE R/O SETHIHALLI VAILLAGE, MEDIHALLI POST VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563 101 4. A BHASKAR S/O LATE N.V.ASWATH NARAYANA R/O NO.1, CHENNASANDRA VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44883 CRP No. 153 of 2022 BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 - ABSENT SRI. NISHAN G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R4 - ABSENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN OS.NO.92/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR. DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (a) AND (d) OF CPC, FOR REJECTIONS 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 1. Heard Ms. Monisha for Sri. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendants in O.S. No.92/2020 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Item No.5 seeking rejection of the plaint by impugned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44883 CRP No. 153 of 2022 order dated 17.01.2022 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolar. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under : 3.1 A suit came to be filed in O.S. No.92/2020 with the following prayer in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as suit property): PRAYER The Plaintiffs pray for a judgment and decree in their favour against the Defendants:- a) Directing the Defendants for their agents or servants or any others by a permanent injunction not to interfere with the suit schedule property and enjoyment of the same by the Plaintiffs either. b) Declare the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the same. c) Delete the names of the Defendants 1 to 5 in the RTC in col No.9 and to enter the names of the Plaintiffs in col No. 9 of the RTC in Sy. No. 191 of Naganala village. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44883 CRP No. 153 of 2022 d) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. SCHEDULE The land bearing Sy.No.191 measuring 6.04 guntas assessed at Rs.8.62 katha No.45 situated at Naganala Village, Sugutur Hobli, Kolar Taluk, bounded on : East by : Kodi of Naganala Tank West by : Road North by : Sy.No.190 South by : Gomala land 3.2 In the suit, the plaintiff laid their claim by contending that plaintiffs are the owner of the suit property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The property was allotted to one Devegowda in a 'Darkasth' proceedings in the year 1930-1931. 3.3 After the death of Devegowda, his son Anne Gowda came in possession of the property and after his death, his son Gudegowda was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44883 CRP No. 153 of 2022 3.4 Defendants without there being any right, title or interest in respect of the suit property, colluded with the revenue officials and got revenue entries mutated in their names, which was challenged by the plaintiffs before the revenue authorities in R.A. No. 615/2013-14. The said appeal is also dismissed. 3.5 Plaintiffs claim that since the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit property, they have sought for the aforesaid relief in the suit. 3.6 Defendants entered appearance pursuant to the suit summons and filed written statement inter alia filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. 3.7 Plaintiffs objected for the same and after due trial, after due contest, said application came to be dismissed by way of impugned order. 3.8 Validity of the said order is called in question in the present revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44883 CRP No. 153 of 2022 4. Ms. Monisha learned counsel for the petitioner retreating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the learned Trial Judge has not taken into consideration about the earlier proceedings and in respect of the same suit property a second suit is not maintainable and does not allow the revision petition. 5. In other words, the gist of the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata. 6. Counsel for respondent absent. 7. In the light of the argument put-forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the suit relief and the cause of action paragraph makes out a cause of action to maintain the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44883 CRP No. 153 of 2022 9. Defence of the res judicata cannot be treated as a ground for rejection of the plaint at the threshold as it is mixed question of law and facts and requires evidence. 10. Under such circumstances, rejection of the application filed by the defendants is just and proper which requires no interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Hence following order: ORDER (i) Civil Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) All the contentions are kept open to be urged during the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52