- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 715 OF 2024 (IO) C/W CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 710 OF 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 712 OF 2024 IN CRP No. 715/2024 BETWEEN: 1. RAJU S/O LATE RANGHABHOVI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS SAJJENAHALLI VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. 2. MANJUNATH S/O LATE RANGABOVI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS SAJJENAHALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOULIPETER W/O PETER 63 YEARS HABBANAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKLESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. 2. KRISHNAJOGI S/O LATE SHANKROJI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BEERANAHALLIKERE RAGHAVENDRA COLONY SATHYAMANGALA POST KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN – 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH ARKALGUD SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7-01-2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, ON IA NO. 8 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.113/2016. IN CRP NO. 710/2024 BETWEEN: 1. CHANNAMMA W/O LATE THIMMABOVI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SAJJENAHALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. 2. BHOODESHA S/O LATE THIMMABOVI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. PUTTABHOVI S/O LATE THIMMABOVI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SAJJENAHALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. 4. PARAMESHA S/O LATE THIMMABOVI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE R/O SAJJENAHALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOULIPETER W/O PETER 63 YEARS HABBANAHALLI VILLAGE BELAGODU HOBLI SAKLESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. 2. KRISHNAJOGI S/O LATE SHANKROJI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BEERANAHALLIKERE RAGHAVENDRA COLONY SATHYAMANGALA POST KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN – 573 201. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH ARKALGUD SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HASSAN ON IA NO.9 FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO.112/2016. IN CRP NO. 712/2024 BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA BOVI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. MANJUNATH S/O LATE SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA BOVI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O SAJJENAHALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOULIPETER W/O PETER 63 YEARS HABBANAHALLI VILLAGE BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKLESHPUR TALUK - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. 2. KRISHNAJOGI S/O LATE SHANKROJI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BEERANAHALLIKERE RAGHAVENDRA COLONY SATHYAMANGALA POST KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN – 573 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH ARKALGUD SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HASSAN ON IA NO.5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.114/2016. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Batch of these petitions raise a challenge to orders dated 07.01.2020, passed by the V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, on applications - I.A.Nos.9 and 5 respectively, filed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 under XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, in O.S.Nos.113/2016, 112/2016 and 114/2016, respectively, whereby, permits withdrawal of the suits but declines to reserve liberty to file fresh suits on the same cause of action. 2. Heard Smt. A.R.Sharadamba, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Mahesh Arkalgud Srikanth, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in all the petitions. Respondent No.2 in all the three petitions are served and unrepresented. 3. Facts in brief as narrated in C.R.P.No715/2024, are taken up for consideration, as the facts in other two petitions are identical. They are as follows: 4. The petitioners institute a suit against the respondents in O.S.No.113/2016, seeking declaration and permanent injunction on the score that the property was purchased by their ancestor in terms of the registered sale deed 27.03.1975. Emergent notice was ordered and the trial progressed. Other suits on the same identical cause of action were clubbed. Despite sufficient opportunity being granted, the defendants did not cross-examine the plaintiffs. At that juncture, application – I.A.No.9 is filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 CPC to withdraw the suit on the score that there are technical errors in the suit. The concerned Court permits to withdraw the suits, but does not reserve liberty to file fresh suit. It is these orders impugned in the respective petitions that are called in question in the subject petitions. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners would reiterate the contents narrated in the petition and submits that Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC permits withdrawal of the suit and also liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. He would further contend that the orders of concerned Court is bereft of reasons as to why the liberty to fresh suit is not reserved on the same cause of action. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he would not have any objection, if this Court either remit the matter back for fresh consideration or grant liberty to file a fresh suit. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The orders impugned in all these cases is common and the order impugned in W.P.No.715/2024 is to be noted and reads as follows: “ORDERS ON IA NO.9 U/O 23 RULE 1 OR C.P.C FILED BY PLAINTIFF Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction as not to fence the property. Plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property from their ancestor Channabovi. He acquired through sale deed dated 27.03.1975. plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Defendants without having right are interfering in the suit schedule property. Plaintiff has filed application under order 23 rule 1(3) with affidavit stating that there is technical error in the suit hence to withdraw the suit. On perusal of plaint court noticed that plaint has no formal defect as per order 23, Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. without any formal defect suit cannot be withdrawn and plaintiff cannot file suit on same cause of action. Plaintiff can make amendments if necessary. Its been since 4 years matter is adjudicating. Hence I proceed to pass as followings: ORDER Application U/o 23 rule 1 of C.P.C filed by the plaintiff hereby partly allowed. Plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw the suit, but does not have liberty to file fresh suit on same cause of action. Call on: 21/1 (PRIYANKA T.K) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 V Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan. (Emphasis added) Perusal at the orders does not indicate as to why the concerned Court was of the opinion that the liberty to file fresh suits on the same cause of action should not be granted. In the absence of even semblance of reasoning, the matters require to be remitted back to the concerned Court to pass necessary orders, in accordance with law afresh, either permitting to file fresh suits on the same cause of action or by denying the applications on its merit. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The civil revision petitions are allowed. b. The impugned orders dated 07.01.*2020, passed by the V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, in all the three petitions, stand quashed. c. The matters are remitted back to the concerned Court to pass orders afresh on the applications / memos * Corrected vide chamber order dated 27.09.2025. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25144 CRP No. 715 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 710 of 2024 CRP No. 712 of 2024 seeking withdrawal of the suits, with liberty to file fresh suits in accordance with law. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT:SS