- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 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.153 OF 2019 (IO) BETWEEN: SYED SALEEM AHMED, S/O SYED JAHANGIR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, FACTORY AT 12/2-1, BEHIND MINERVA MILLS, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED, NO.4, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMAR KRUPA ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. G. RAMESH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJU P., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED IN IA NO.6 IN OS NO.878/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE IA NO.6 Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (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 Heard Sri.R.Kalyan, learned counsel for petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendant in OS No.878/2012 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-23), whereby IA No.6 filed under Order VII Rule 11, CPC came to be dismissed. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: Plaintiff filed a suit with the following relief. (i) Declare the Plaintiff is the owner of the Item No.2 of the Suit Schedule Property. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 (ii) Grant the possession of the Item No. 2 of the Schedule Property to the plaintiff from the defendant. (iii) And grant and order to pay mense profit in favour of the plaintiff to the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Grant such other relief/s deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the suit, in the interest of justice. In respect of following properties: SCHEDULE PROPERTY All the part and parcel of the property bearing Site. No. 12/2-1, PIN No. 25-68-12/2-1, situated behind the Minerva Mills, Magadi Road, BBMP Ward No.25/Ramachandrapura, Bangalore, measuring an area of East to West 63 feet and North to South 40 feet bounded on East by - Government Road, West by - Private property, North by - Corporation old No. 12/2 and 43/1 property belonging to Krishnam. ITEM NO.2 All the part and parcel of ground floor of the property bearing Site. No.12/2-1, PIN No.25-68- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 12/2-1, situated behind the Minerva Mills, Magadi Road, BBMP Ward No.25/Ramachandrapura, Bangalore, measuring an total area of approximately 1200 Sq. feet, bounded on East - Government Road, West by - Portion of property of M/S.Rajesh Export, North by Portion of property of M/S.Rajesh Export, South by Cross Road. 4. Plaintiff contended that, plaintiff is the owner of the suit property having purchased under a sale deed. It is further contended that one Muniswamappa was the original owner of the suit property, who had bequeathed the said property by way of a Registered Will on 25.09.1966 to his two grandsons namely Venkatesh and Krishnamurthy. Muniswamappa having died in the year 1973, Sri.S.Venkatesh, one of the grandsons succeeded to the suit property as a legatee under the Will. Said Venkatesh made a settlement deed on 04.11.1999 in favour of his wife Smt. Kokila and whereby she became the owner of the property. Said Kokila sold the suit property in favour of Govindraju on 27.03.2006. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 5. From Govindraju plaintiff purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated 17.10.2010. 6. Plaintiff further contended that the defendant was a tenant in occupation of part of the ground floor of the suit property, who is running a business in the name and style, 'Universal Machine Tools' on monthly rental basis under the previous owner and plaintiff having purchased the property, the defendant is tenant under the plaintiff. 7. It is further contended that the plaintiff sought for payment of rent which was denied by the defendant and therefore issued a notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to vacate and hand over the premises having terminated the tenancy. When there was no compliance, and title is denied by the defendant, suit with the aforesaid prayer came to be filed. 8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement and also an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC vide IA No. 6. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 9. Plaintiff opposed the same by filing detailed written objections. 10. Learned trial judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the application filed by the defendant inter alia holding in Paragraph Nos.12 and 13 as under: "12. In the light of the arguments canvassed by the respective counsels for the parties I have gone through the records and also the decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant. Admittedly the plaintiff has come up with the present suit seeking the relief of declaration to declare him as the owner of item No.2 of the suit schedule property, for possession, and such other reliefs. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant, whereas it is the contention of the defendant that the entire plaint averments does not disclose in what capacity the defendant is in occupation of item No.2 of the suit schedule property and contended that the plaintiff has not sought for declaration in respect of entire item No.1 of the suit schedule property So also it is the contention of the defendant that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are barred by limitation. . 13. In the light of the above rival contentions on going through the records it shows that the plaintiff in para 6 of the plaint stated that he has purchased the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 schedule property from his vendor V.Govindaraju and also stated that the defendant was tenant in the suit schedule property at that time and by virtue of he purchased the suit schedule property the defendant attorned tenancy in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. He further stated that even he was authorised to collect the rent from the defendant and subsequently he issued letter on 20/7/2010 to the defendant and demanded the rent payable to him, but the defendant has not paid the rent. Further upon perusal of para 6 of the plaint it shows that when the defendant has refused to pay the rent, he issued legal notice dated 25/10/2010 terminating his tenancy and called for him to vacate item No.2 of the suit schedule property. So also in the said paragraph the plaintiff stated that the defendant gave reply to the notice sent by him on 25/11/2010 and refused to pay the rent and also denied the jural relationship of landlord. He further stated that earlier the defendant filed suit in O.S.2980/2006 against one Annamalai and five others for injunction and the said suit was dismissed on 17/12/2009. He further stated that in the said para the defendant is making fake claim over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff in the objection filed to the present application contended that since the defendant has denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant he has come up with the present suit. So the most important aspect to be taken note of here is that in view of the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant the plaintiff has come up with the present suit seeking the relief of declaration, possession and for such other reliefs. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 The defendant contended that the averments made in the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are barred by limitation. So far as the said contention of the defendant is concerned, it can be said that upon perusal of the entire plaint averments it shows that there is cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit and also he has sated in para No.6 under what circumstances he has come up with the present suit seeking the relief of declaration and such other reliefs. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant. No doubt, if the plaint does not disclose the cause of action, certainly the plaint is liable to be rejected. But here is a case, as it is already stated above, upon perusal of the plaint averments shows that there is cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit and also at this stage it cannot be possible to say that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are barred by law of limitation. It is settled law that in order to reject the plaint, the court must look at the plaint and at nothing else. The reading of the plaint should be meaningful and not formal. So also it is settled law that if the question of limitation raised by the opposite party is connected with the merits of the case, the matter requires to be decided along with the main matter or other issues. When that would be the case and when the averments made in the plaint shows that there is cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit and as it is already stated above the point of limitation cannot be adjudicated at this stage, and the same is requires to be considered along with the main - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 matter, whatever the contention taken by the defendant in the present application cannot be accepted. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be said that the decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant are not helpful to the case of defendant. So by considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the application filed by the defendant is liable to be rejected. Accordingly point No.1 for consideration is answered in the Negative." 11. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court in this revision. 12. Sri.R. Kalyan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that trial Court did not properly appreciate the real controversy between the parties and mechanically dismissed the application filed by the defendant without affording proper reasons and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. He would also contend that from the averments of plaint paragraph No.6 it shows that there is a doubt as to the very title of the plaintiff. When such is the factual aspect from - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 the plaint averments, the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint. 14. Counsel for respondent absent today. 15. In the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit relief is for declaration and possession. It was not a simple case for recovery of the possession by issuing termination notice. 17. Fact of the defendant being the tenant under the previous owner is not in dispute. Whether at all there was a contract title in the defendant as is sought to be canvassed cannot be decided while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. 18. Anyway it is for the parties to place necessary evidence in the suit and Trial Court is required to raise necessary issues and try the suit based on such issues. Unless - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44157 CRP No. 153 of 2019 a full-fledged trial takes place, controversy between the parties cannot be decided at the threshold by entertaining the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. 19. Thus, rejection of the application vide IA No.6 filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint is just and proper which requires no interference by this Court in this revision. 20. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition dismissed. (ii) All the contentions are kept open to be urged during the trial in accordance with law. (iii) It is made clear that the reasoning recorded by this Court is only for the disposal of the revision and shall not affect the rights of the parties during the trial. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61