- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 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.583 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. B. V. HARISH KUMAR S/O SRI VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT OLD TOWN, BETHAMANGALA POST AND HOBLI, KGF TALUK, KGF-563 116 …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. R. SRINIVAS S/O SRI RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, GUTTAHALLI POST, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, KGF TALUK, KGF - 563 116 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. SRI. SATHISH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 4. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 5. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 6. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O SRI. MURALI, D/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT KOTHUR VILLAGE, BETHAMANGALA POST AND HOBLI, KGF TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 116 7. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT RALABUDUGURU VILLAGE NEAR POLICE STATION RALABUDUGURU SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, KUPPAM TALUK, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517423 8. SMT. RANIYAMMA W/O SRI. APPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT SOMARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, GANGAPURA POST, SHAPUR GRAM PANCHAYATH, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR-563 103 9. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O SRI. VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT KAKINATHA VILLAGE, THOTALI POST AND GRAM PANCHAYATH, SUGUTURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR-563101 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 10. SMT. MUNIRATHNA W/O SRI. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KOTHUR VILLAGE, BETHAMANGALA POST AND HOBLI, KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 116 11. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O SRI. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT KOTHUR VILLAGE, V-KOTA MANDALAM, PALAMNER TALUK, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517424 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATHA A C, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.10.2025, NOTICE TO R2 TO R11 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.418/2024 ON THE FILE OF C/C IIND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF, REJECTING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Rajesh Gowda, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. Defendant No.10 in O.S.No.418/2024 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF, is the revision petitioner challenging the Order dated 23.07.2025 rejecting I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: First respondent being the plaintiff filed suit in O.S No.418/2024 with the following prayer in respect of the following immovable property based on the agreement to sell executed by defendant Nos.1 to 9 and 11. “The Plaintiff pray for judgment and decree against Defendants as under: a) For Specific Performance of contract as per the register sale agreement made by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 12/09/2012 and get the same registered in the office of Sub-registrar, KGF Taluk. KGF, on the cost of the plaintiff and if the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 defendants are fail to perform their part of the contract as stated above, order that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to execute and sale deed as per register sale agreement made by the defendants on 12/09/2012 and through court process or missionary of this Hon'ble court in accordance with law. b) For delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in favor of plaintiff from the defendants. c) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their family members, agents, servants and others representing them from alienate or encumbering the suit property to the third parties. d) For Court costs and for grant of such other reliefs this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant to the plaintiff in the nature of the suit.” DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY “The property bearing Sy.No.17/2, Khatha No.36 measuring to an extent of 0.15 Guntas assessment of Rs. 85 paisa, situated at Kodihalli Village, Guttahalli Post, Bethamangala Hobli, KGF Taluk, KGF, same is bounded on East by Venkatappa and his wife & children property, West by Gurrappa Property, North by Doddappaiah's Pond, South by Kothur cemetery and Ramaiah property.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, 10th defendant entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide I.A.No.2. Plaintiff opposed the same. 5. By impugned order learned Trial Judge rejected the said application. 6. Tenth defendant claimed that he is a bonafide purchaser for value of the suit property and the time was the essence of contract of agreement to sell between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9 and 11. After efflux of time fixed in the said agreement, the contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9 and 11 got terminated. Thereafter the sale deed in favour of the tenth defendant has taken place and thus sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents is absent. 8. Sri Rajesh Gowda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner places reliance on the Order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CRP No.77/2023 dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 27.08.2024 and he invited attention of this Court to paragraph 16 of the said Order which reads as under: “16. A perusal of the plaint and the agreement of sale dated 15.04.2007 clearly indicates that the sale transaction was to be completed within 11 months from the date of the agreement. No further extension of time was stipulated for completing the sale consideration, even after obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority. An absolute sale deed was executed in favor of Defendant No.11 by Defendants No.1 to 10 on 31.03.2011. The plaintiff has stated that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 15.11.2007, when he visited the office of the Sub-Registrar and became aware of the sale deed executed in favor of Defendant No.11. It may reasonably be inferred that this purported cause of action is merely illusory and has been concocted solely to circumvent the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Therefore, the averments in the plaint clearly indicate that the suit, having been filed after three years from the expiration of the 11-month period stipulated in the agreement, is barred by limitation as specified under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.” 9. Having considered the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 10. On such perusal of the material on record, in the first place, there is no written statement at all filed by the defendant No.10 before the Trial Court. As such, the defence of tenth defendant is not known. 11. Likewise, other defendants have also not filed the written statement. Nevertheless, it is settled principle of law that for rejection of plaint, only plaint averments needs to be looked into. 12. Whether at all the rights of the plaintiff and the agreement to sell entered into by the plaintiff with defendant Nos.1 to 9 and 11 stood terminated on account of efflux of time or not, cannot be decided by holding a mini trial, that too while considering the application filed by the subsequent purchaser under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Further, merely on the ground that the tenth defendant is a subsequent purchaser he would not get right ipso facto in seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that contract between plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 9 and 11 stood terminated. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 14. Whether at all time was the essence of contract or not cannot be decided at the threshold by holding a mini trial. 15. Therefore, rejection of the application by the Trial Court is just and proper. 16. Adverting to the decision rendered by the learned Judge of the co-ordinate Bench in CRP No.77/2023 is concerned, the learned Judge has taken into consideration that time was the essence of the contract, as within 11 months there was no execution of the sale deed. 17. Therefore, Section 54 of the Limitation Act would apply for the Suit. 18. Consideration of whether proper termination of the agreement has taken place or not is an issue that has to be decided in the trial by directing the parties to lead the evidence. 19. Every defendant would only contend that time is the essence of the contract and only on the contentions taken by the party either in the affidavit in support of application under - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47849 CRP No. 583 of 2025 Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or in the written statement cannot ipso facto result in rejection of the plaint, as per settled principles of law. 20. Therefore, the decision rendered in the aforesaid Civil Revision Petition is of no avail for the petitioner to advance his case further. 21. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58