- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1975 CRP No. 100135 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 100134 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100135 OF 2024 C/W CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100134 OF 2024 IN CRP NO.100135/2024 BETWEEN: SATISH S/O DHANAPAL KUDACHE AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O SHRI NAGAR, RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND KUMAR ASHTEKAR AND SRI. AKSHAY KATTI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. AMIT S/O VASANT KULAGUDE AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O NEAR OLD BHAJI MARKET, RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 2. BAHUBALI S/O BHUPAL KUDACHE AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 3. SUJATA W/O BAHUBALI KUDACHE (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS SUJATA W/O BHUPAL KUDACHE) AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 4. BHARATESH S/O BHUPAL KUDACHE AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 5. MAHAVEER S/O SATAPPA DALAL AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.02.04 11:07:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1975 CRP No. 100135 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 100134 of 2024 R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 6. JAYAKUMAR S/O SATAPPA DALAL AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O NANDESHWAR, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591240. R/BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. MAHAVEER S/O. SATAPPA DALAL I.E. RESPONDENT NO.5 7. NIRMALA W/O JINNAPPA SADALAGE AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O PLOT NO.13, PREETI RAJ BUILDING, RAJYAPADHAYA NAGAR, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA 416011. R/BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. MAHAVEER S/O. SATAPPA DALAL I.E. RESPONDENT NO.5 8. SANMATI W/O VIVEKRAO RANGOLE AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O AKKOL, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591211. 9. VANDANA W/O SHEETAL UPADHYE AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O ARAG, TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI 416401. 10. SUVARNA W/O BAHUBALI PATIL AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD 582208. RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10 ARE R/BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AS THEIR G.P.A HOLDER …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT NO.226/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, RAIBAG AT RAIBAG AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 PASSED IN THE SAID CASE DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 10 UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1975 CRP No. 100135 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 100134 of 2024 IN CRP NO. 100134/2024 BETWEEN: SATISH S/O DHANAPAL KUDACHE AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O SHRI NAGAR, RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND KUMAR ASHTEKAR AND SRI. AKSHAY KATTI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. BABU S/O BHARAMU HOSAMANI, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O NEAR OLD BHAJI MARKET, RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 2. BAHUBALI S/O BHUPAL KUDACHE AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 3. SUJATA W/O BAHUBALI KUDACHE (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS SUJATA W/O BHUPAL KUDACHI) AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 4. BHARATESH S/O BHUPAL KUDACHI AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 5. MAHAVEER S/O SATAPPA DALAL AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 6. JAYAKUMAR S/O SATAPPA DALAL AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O NANDESHWAR, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591240. R/BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. MAHAVEER S/O. SATAPPA DALAL I.E. RESPONDENT NO.5 7. NIRMALA W/O JINNAPPA SADALAGE AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O PLOT NO.13, PREETI RAJ BUILDING, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1975 CRP No. 100135 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 100134 of 2024 RAJYAPADHAYA NAGAR, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA 416011. R/BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. MAHAVEER S/O. SATAPPA DALAL I.E. RESPONDENT NO.5 8. SANMATI W/O VIVEKRAO RANGOLE AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O AKKOL, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591211. 9. VANDANA W/O SHEETAL UPADHYE AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O ARAG, TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI 416401. 10. SUVARNA W/O BAHUBALI PATIL AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD 582208. RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10 ARE R/BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AS THEIR G.P.A HOLDER …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT NO.228/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, RAIBAG AT RAIBAG AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 PASSED IN THE SAID CASE DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 10 UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & ETC., THESE PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1975 CRP No. 100135 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 100134 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. CRP No.100135/2024 and CRP No.100134/2024 are filed under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order 02.01.2023 in OS No.226/2013 and OS No.228/2013 on the file of Additional Civil Judge at Raibag (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) dismissing the application filed by the defendant Nos.7 to 10 under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(d) of CPC. 3. The plaintiff has filed suit in OS No.45/2005 seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction, with regard to the registered sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. 4. The suit is contested by the defendants. The defendant Nos.7 to 10 have filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC and sought for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, the subject matter of the suit has been considered in OS No.347/2009 filed by the defendant Nos.4 to 6 and also the proceedings in FDP No.9/2008, RA No.11/2013 and RSA No.100815/2016 and as such the lis between the parties is already concluded before the Court of law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1975 CRP No. 100135 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 100134 of 2024 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff has no right to claim schedule property which is the subject matter of sale deed, said to have been executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. 6. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, though the aforementioned proceedings are between the parties however, the Trial Court after considering the plaint averments particularly at paragraph No.14 held that the plaintiff has shown a cause of action that, the defendants are illegally obstructed the construction of the structure by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein referred to the aforementioned proceedings and same has to be considered in a full-fledged trial and parties have to prove their case by production of relevant documents, and in that view of the matter, I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(d) of CPC. Accordingly, Revision Petitions are dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM / LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6