- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 707 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI V PADMANABHAIA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, 8TH MAIN ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 027 REP : BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY T K, S/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT THIRUPALYA, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANEKAL, BANGALORE-560 099 …PETITIONER (BY SRI VEERESH M. UPPIN FOR SRI K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI KALYAN B. BADAMI S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.270, “RENUKA NILAYA”, 3RD CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT, VOLAGEREHALLI, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, DUBASIPALYA, R.V.C.E POST, Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025 BANGALORE-560059 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.C.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN OS.NO.8381/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-12), BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 1(3) OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Veeresh M. Uppin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.C. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the Order passed on I.A.No.6, filed by the plaintiff under Order No. XXIII Rule 1 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4. Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up illegal construction in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025 the respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’): “All the part and parcel of the property bearing site No.29, East to west 30 feet and North to South 40 feet totally measuring 1200 sq. feet, carved out in Sy.No.45/1 and 44/8 situated at Valagerahalli village, Kengere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on the : East by : Site bearing no.30 West by : Road North by : Road South by : Site bearing No.28.” 5. Plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 01.12.1988. Plaintiff also contended that plaintiff is a senior citizen and presently residing in Sampangiramnagara. 6. On 02.12.2023 when plaintiff visited the suit property for cleaning, defendant without any right, title or interest over the suit property interfered with the possession of the suit property and obstructed the plaintiff not to carry out cleaning work in the suit property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025 7. It is further contended that defendant with an intention to grab the valuable property of the plaintiff, on 08.12.2023 started illegal construction on the suit property and therefore, filed the suit for permanent injunction as aforesaid. 8. Plaintiff filed applications for amendment of the plaint and also withdrawal of the plaint retaining the cause of action whereas a third party/stranger filed a suit claiming that he is owner of the suit property. 9. Cause of action paragraph in the plaint reads as under: “The cause of action for the suit arose on 02.12.2023 the day on which the defendant illegally tried to enter upon the schedule property by force and on 08.12.2023 the day on which the defendant started illegal construction on the schedule property and 15.12.2023 the day on which the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the police, BESCOM and BBMP about illegal act of defendant and cause of action continue even to this day.” 10. Since there is a serious dispute as to the title in respect of the suit property, question of retaining the cause of action which arose on 02.12.2023, 08.12.2023 and 15.12.2023 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025 cannot be retained with regard to the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. 11. If the plaintiff is intending to file a comprehensive suit, he may work out his remedy in accordance with law. 12. Further, when the application seeking amendment of the plaint is allowed by the Court at the request of the plaintiff, the application seeking withdrawal of the plaint retaining the cause of action as is contemplated under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) CPC is thus justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Accordingly, the following : ORDER (i) Revision petition stands dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR