- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49508 CRP No. 750 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 750 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: REDDY JANA SANGHA REDG., REGISTERED OFFICE AT B.D. ROAD CHITRADURGA - 577 501 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARIES. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED MOHAMMED IRBAZ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K.H. SEETHRAMA REDDY S/O LATE HAMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS R/O DOOR NO 1673, 31ST CROSS 16TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 070. 2. SRI C. RAGHAVA REDDY S/O CHANNAMALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/O DOOR NO 351, 15TH CROSS, CO-OPERATIVE OFFICERS LAYOUT MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE BENGALURU - 560 086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH H V.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2023 PASSED ON IA No. 7 IN OS No. 493/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE IA No. 7 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49508 CRP No. 750 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Syed Mohammed Irbaz, learned counsel Sri. Mahamad Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Harish H.V, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Defendant in O.S No.493/2021 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint in O.S.No.493/2021. 4. The facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition is as under: 4.1 The suit came to be filed by the respondents in O.S.No.493/2021 in respect of following immovable property: ''Reddy Jana Sangha Regd. Registration office situated at B.D.Road Chitradurga city, Reddy Samudaya Bhavana - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49508 CRP No. 750 of 2023 constructed on the alienated land bearing Sy.No.52/1B2 measuring 1 acre 32½ guntas and Sy.No.52/1A3 measuring 2 guntas totally measuring 1 acre 34½ guntas situated in Kelagote Village, Chitradurga Taluk, on the western side of Chitradurga- Turuvanur Road bounded by:- East:- Chitradurga-Turuvanur Road, West:- Re.Sy.No.51/P. North:-Re.Sy.No.52/1B3. South:-Re.Sy.No.52/1A1.'' 4.2. Subsequently, an application is also filed by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 8 of CPC to convert the suit into representative suit. 5. In the plaint, it is contented that defendant-Sangha was founded in the year 1921, registered under the provisions of the Mysore Societies Registration Act. By-laws were approved in the year 1932 and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 being the members of the defendant-Sangha are interested persons in the development of the sangha having existing interest. 6. Defendant-Sangha purchased a site on northern side of B.D. Road, Chitradurga City, having Kaneshumari No.1867 along with a Mangalore-tiled roof, old building through a registered sale deed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49508 CRP No. 750 of 2023 7. It is further contented that defendant-Sangha had established Student's hostel for providing food and accommodation for the needy students of Reddy caste. The name of the hostel is 'Reddy Hostel' belonging to Reddy caste persons alone. 8. About 45 years earlier, a new hostel building had been constructed on the north-east side of the said side. 'Reddy' caste members and 'Kamma' caste members of defendant- Sangha had contributed money for the new building and there is a mismanagement with regard to the defendant-Sangha and therefore, suit came to be filed. 9. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement and also under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 10. Plaintiff objected the same and learned trial Judge by considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49508 CRP No. 750 of 2023 12. Sri. Syed Mohammed Irbaz, learned counsel Sri. Mahamad Tahir, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that plaintiffs have no right to institute the suit and they are the dismantled members of the defendant-Sangha. 13. He further contended that only ground on which the plaintiff claim right to file the suit is that the plaintiffs are the life members. They cannot object to the activities of the Sangha and they have filed the suit with a malafide intention and in order to blackmail the office bearers of the sangha. 14. He would also contend that the learned trial Judge dismissing the application where there is no cause of action to file the suit as resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. Per contra, Sri. H V Harish, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supports the impugned order. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49508 CRP No. 750 of 2023 17. On such perusal of the material on record, it is to be noted that initially the respondents alone filed the suit. Later on, an application under Order I Rule 8 came to be filed. Now the suit has thus taken the shape of a representative suit. 18. Whether at all the activities are done as per the by- laws or not cannot be a subject matter of mini trial while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by the defendant. 19. Having regard to the nature of allegations found in the plaint averments and the cause of action paragraph mentioned in the plaint and taking note of the fact that the suit has now taken the shape of a representative suit, the dismissal of the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is thus just and proper, which requires no interference by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 20. Accordingly, following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49508 CRP No. 750 of 2023 (ii) However, all the defenses that are available to the defendant is kept open to be argued in the pending suit in accordance with law. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23