- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47711 CRP No. 417 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 417 OF 2021 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMANJINAPPA S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A HASIGALA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY R A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI C. LOKESH S/O CHINNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. SMT SUJATHA W/O SRI C. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. SMT L. ASHA D/O SRI C LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. MASTER L KUSHMITH AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT MELINAPETE, HOSAKOTE TOWN, HOSAKOTE, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47711 CRP No. 417 of 2021 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 5. SRI. SUDEEP N., R/A HASIGALA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 IS MINOR, V/O DATED 13.10.2025 NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.426/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA.NO.IX FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) TO (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION 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 Sri.Ajay R.A., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri.K.Murthy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with vide order dated 13.10.2025. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.426/2018 is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned trial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47711 CRP No. 417 of 2021 Judge dated 12.11.2021 rejecting the application filed by the first defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) CPC. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A suit came to be filed by the respondents 1 to 3 with following prayer in respect of immovable property: "(a) Cancel : The illegally sale deed dated 19/08/2013, which is registered as document HSK/1/04484/2013-14, of Book-I, stored in CD No.HSKD-419, registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hosakote, allegedly executed by the plaintiffs in favour of 1st Defendant with respect to suit Schedule Property consequently plaintiffs are the absolute owners; (b) Permanent injunction : to restrain the 1st defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property; and to; (c) Award costs of these proceedings and grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant, under the facts and circumstances of the case, in interest of justice and equity." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47711 CRP No. 417 of 2021 4. Plaintiffs contended that defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 colluded and in the guise of creating a mortgage in respect of the suit property, created a sale deed which came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only in the year 2018 and immediately filed the suit. 5. Cause of action paragraph in the suit is at paragraph No.12 which reads as under: "12. The cause of action for the above suit arose on 12.02.2018, and 18.02.2018 and all subsequent dates on which the 1st Defendant made an alleged interference into the suit schedule property and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court." 6. Defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement. Issues are framed and parties went in for trial. 7. After the document which is the certified copy of the sale deed came to be marked, application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) CPC came to be preferred on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47711 CRP No. 417 of 2021 ground that there is no cause of action to the suit and suit is time barred. 8. The plaintiffs opposed the said application and learned trial Judge by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the first defendant, interalia holding in paragraph Nos.13 to 15 and 19 to 21 as under: '' 13. Having heard the arguments, I have meticulously gone through the plaint averments. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the plaintiffs have questioned a registered sale deed dated 19.08.2013 alleged to have been executed by them in favour of 1st defendant in respect of the suit schedule properties. They have sought to cancel the said sale deed. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in the plaint that the 1st defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant obtained the said sale deed in question fraudulently taking advantage of all documents given to him as security. The plaintiffs have alleged that the 1st defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant got created the said sale deed in question and therefore they are constrained to seek cancellation of sale deed. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (1999) 3 SCC 267 - D. Ramachandran vs. R.V. Janakiraman has held that "If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true infact". Therefore in the instant case also, the Court is not expected to state whether the plaintiffs are able to prove cause of action. That could be decided only after trial. In addition to this, the decision of our own High Court needs a mention here. In ILR 2017 KAR 2496-Sri Madeppa @ Shivalingappa @ Madiwalappa ahd Others vs. Sri Madiwalappa and Others, it has been held that "Plaint can be rejected on any of the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C, but no plaint can be rejected on the basis of the defence taken by the defendant in the written statement. That - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47711 CRP No. 417 of 2021 should be established only on the pleadings of the plaint. Mere fact that the plaintiffs may not succeed will not be a ground for rejecting the plaint. The only averments to be looked into is plaint averments and nothing else", 15. Thus, In view of the above decisions, suffice it to state that the plaint averments are only germane to decide an application for rejection of plaint. Furthermore, as far as the allegation of fraudulent acts of the defendants as alleged in the plaint require full fledged trial. At the cost of repetition, reading of the plaint averments as a whole, gives an indication that the plaintiffs claiming to be the owners of the suit schedule property alleging that the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant is collusive and outcome of fraudulent acts, as a result of active connivance of 2nd defendant gives a cause of action which needs trial. Therefore, a meaningful reading of the plaint averments discloses a cause of action. Therefore in the considered opinion of this Court the facts mentioned in the plaint constitute a cause of action for the present suit and leads to a triable issue. Therefore I hold that the plaint in the instant suit discloses a cause of action. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative. 19. Further more, in the instant case, the question of limitation raised by the defendant is a mixed question of law and facts. When exactly the plaintiffs have come to know of the execution of the registered sale deed in question is a matter of trial and requires evidence on those aspects of the matter. The plea of limitation as raised in this suit gives raise to a triable issue. 20. Moreover, the facts and circumstances in the instant case and the one covered in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben's case relied upon by 1st defendant would not aid the 1st defendant to contend that the suit is barred by limitation and entailing rejection of plaint. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2018) 6 SCC 422 Chhotanben and Another vs. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkur and another held that plaint could not be rejected at the threshold in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C and the issue regarding suit being barred by limitation was a triable issue in fact, situation of the case. In view of all these, I conclude that it is not possible to say that the suit is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47711 CRP No. 417 of 2021 barred by limitation from the statement in the plaint. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in the Negative." 9. Being aggrieved by the same, first defendant is before this Court in this revision. 10. Sri.Ajay R.A., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that the plaintiffs have filed the sale deed which is sought to be cancelled by obtaining the certified copy in the year 2023 and same is marked in the trial which shows that the cause of action that was pleaded in the suit is illusory and imaginary and thus sought for allowing the revision. 11. He would also contend that for the sale deed of the year 2013, the suit in the year 2018 came to be filed, which is per se, barred by limitation and thus rejection of the application is improper and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47711 CRP No. 417 of 2021 12. Per contra, Sri.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 supports the impugned order. 13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that learned trial Judge has assigned proper reasons for rejection of the application filed by the first defendant. It is pertinent to note that question of cause of action is a bundle of facts which needs to be established only at the end of the trial. 15. Further, question of limitation in the case on hand is mixed question of law and facts inasmuch as plaintiffs have contended that there is a fraud played by the defendants 1 and 2 in collusion and the same needs to be established and since already the trial has commenced, first defendant can very well establish his case during the trial. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47711 CRP No. 417 of 2021 16. A mini trial to consider the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) CPC is deprecated by catena of judgments. Thus, rejection of the application is just and proper which requires no interference in the present revision petition. Hence following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. However it is made clear that the observations made by this Court are only for the disposal of the present revision petition and parties can canvass all possible points in their favour in trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43