- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.551 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. M/S UNIQUE SERVICES MINMETAL PVT LTD COMPANY IS INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1, STEERWELL CHAMBERS, 101, 1ST FLOOR, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, KUMARA PARK (EAST), BENGALURU- 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.R.SAMPATH KUMAR 2. SRI.R.SAMPATH KUMAR S/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. UNIQUE MINMETAL PVT LTD COMPANY IS INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AT NO.102, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, RMV 2ND STAGE, NGEF LAYOUT, BANGALORE -560 094. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MALLIKA BEGUM W/O LATE D.SYED ABBAS, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.168, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 ARMSTRONG ROAD, BANGALORE -560 001. 2. SRI D SYED NOORUL HASSAN S/O LATE AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.168, ARMSTRONG ROAD, BANGALORE -560 001. 3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF IDBI BANK LTD, SPECIALIZED CORPORATE BRANCH, AT NO.102, SHAKTHI COMFORT TOWER, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE -560 027. AND ALSO AT THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF IDBI BANK LTD, AT NO.58, MISSION ROAD, POST BAG NO.27015, BANGALORE -560 027. 4. SANTOSH RAGHU SHETTY, S/O RAGHU SHETTY, MAJOR, DIRECTOR OF M/S. UNIQUE MINMETAL PVT LTD COMPANY IS INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1 STEERWELL CHAMBERS, 101, 1ST FLOOR, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, KUMARA PARK (EAST), BENGALURU- 560 001. 5. K.N.UDAY SHANKAR, S/O ANANTHA NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.198 “NANNA KANASU” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 VAKALIYAMMA STREET, ULHAL MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 056 6. IRMA IMAGE IMPACT INDIA PVT LTD A COMPANY IS INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.64, MHADA FOUR BUNGALOW, ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI - 400053 AND ALSO AT IRMA IMAGE IMPACT INDIA PVT LTD COMPANY IS INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING IT OFFICE AT NO.28, C/O DUO ASSOCIATES, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS, TUMMALACHETTY PANI MAHESH @ T PANI MAHESH AND ALUNGOOR MUNIVENKATA SHARATCHANDRA @ A M SHARATCHANDRA …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VIII IN O.S.NO.8626/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.VIII FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECYION 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Revision Petitioners are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.8626/2015 on the file of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14) challenging the rejection of application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the considered Order dated 07.07.2025. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs/contesting respondents in O.S.No.8626/2015 with the following prayer: “(a) Declare that Hiba dated 18.04.1959 is null and void and not binding either on the plaintiffs or on the schedule property. (b) Decree of declaration that the deed of partition executed on 19.02.2008 duly registered as document No.SHR-1-00001/2007-08 of Book-I, in the office of the Sub Registrar, is null and void abinitio and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 not binding either on the plaintiffs or the schedule property. (c) Decree of declaration that the deeds of rectification of partition executed on 10.03.2008 duly registered as document of Book-I, No.SHR-1-00037/2007- 08 contained in CD No.SHRD1, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, is null and void abinitio and not binding either on the plaintiffs or the schedule property, (d) Decree of Declaration that the two Agreements to Sell executed on 01.03.2008 duly registered as document No.SHR-1-00002/2007-08 and document No.SHR-1-00003/2007-08 of Book-I, contained in CD No.SHRD-1, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, in favour of the 6th defendant, is null and void abinitio and not binding either on the plaintiffs or the schedule property, (e) Decree of Declaration that the two Deeds of Rectification to Agreement to Sell executed on 10.03.2008 duly registered as document No.SHR-1-00038/2007-08 and document No.SHR-1-00039/2007-08 of Book-I, contained in CD No.SHRD-1, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, in favour of the 6th defendant, is null and void abinitio and not binding either on the plaintiffs or the schedule property, (f) Decree of Declaration that the two Power of Attorney executed on 01.03.2008 duly registered as document No.SHR-4-00001/2007-08 and document No.SHR-4-00002/2007-08 of Book-I, contained in CD - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 No.SHRD-1, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, in favour of the 5th defendant, is null and void abinitio and not binding either on the plaintiffs or the schedule property, (g) Decree of Declaration that the two Deeds of Rectification of Power of Attorney executed on 10.03.2008 duly registered as document No.SHR-4-00014/2007 and document No.SHR-4-00015/2007 of Book-I, contained in CD No.SHRD-1, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, in favour of the 5th defendant, is null and void abinitio and not binding either on the plaintiffs or the schedule property, (h) Decree of Declaration that the two Deeds of Sale executed on 04.03.2008 by the 5th defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant duly registered as document No.SHR-9-1181/2009-10 and document No.SHR-9- 1182/2009-10 of Book-I, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, is null and void abinitio and not binding either on the plaintiffs or the schedule property, (i) Decree of Declaration that the Agreements executed by the 2nd defendant represented by its Directors including defendants No.3 and 4 in favour of the 1st defendant for any financial assistance in any extent what so ever and any such charge or mortgage registered either in the office of the Sub-Registrar or with the Registrar or Companies, is null and void abinitio and not binding either on the plaintiffs or the schedule property and consequently declare that the schedule property - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 cannot be proceeded against by the 1st defendant for recovery of the liabilities if any of defendants No.2 and 4, (j) Decree a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen, legal heirs, legal representatives, officers, employees, successors, assignees, executors, assigns or any other person/s claiming either through or under or in trust for the defendants from alienating the schedule property of the plaintiffs, (k) Decree a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen, legal heirs, legal representatives, officers, employees, successors, assignees, executors, assigns or any other person/s claiming either through or under or in trust for the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of schedule property, (l) For an order to the cost of present suit.” 4. The lengthy plaint contains several factual aspects including previous proceedings before this Court in RFA Nos.64/1964 and 65/1964. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 5. But the dispute surrounds in respect of a Hiba executed by Syed Noorulla Hussain dated 18.04.1959 and subsequent transactions thereto. 6. Defendants, pursuant to suit summons entered appearance and filed detailed written statement, inter alia contending that the suit is not only barred by limitation, but is without cause of action. 7. Along with the written statement, defendant Nos.2 and 3 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for rejection of plaint at the threshold on two counts primarily. 8. Firstly, the suit is barred by limitation. Secondly, there is no cause of action to file the suit, especially, in view of the earlier proceedings. 9. The learned Trial Judge, after entertaining the objections of the parties in this regard, dealt with both the points in detail and rejected the application by the impugned order, wherein, at paragraphs 12 and 13 it is observed as under: “12. On careful reading of the above pleadings of the plaintiffs, prima-facie it appears that the plaintiffs are - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 claiming their title over the suit schedule property from Syed Hashem Sab, after his death, his wife Sogra Bi acquired the suit schedule property through a Court decree, she gifted it to the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the 2nd plaintiff by name Syed Abbas and after his death, the plaintiffs have inherited the suit schedule property. In O.S.No.4187/2003, the title of the plaintiffs were declared and in view of the decree passed in the said suit, the possession on the suit schedule property was handed over to the plaintiffs by one R. Vishwanath. With the above claims, the plaintiffs are challenging the alleged documents and seeking the reliefs in that regard. The said facts averred by the plaintiffs in the plaint clearly shows the cause of action to file the present suit against the defendants. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. In the affidavit filed by the 3rd defendant in support of the present application, he has not stated that as per the plaint averments, the suit is barred under which law for the time being in force. On careful readings of the plaint averments, the suit is not barred by any law for the time being in force. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under these circumstances, the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 Procedure. Hence, I answer the above point in the negative.” 10. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed the present revision petition. 11. Sri H.B.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of the revision petition, vehemently contended that the Trial Court has not understood the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and unnecessarily the defendants are required to contest the vexatious suit especially in view of the earlier proceeding which reached up to this Court in aforesaid Regular First Appeals. Thus, sought for admitting the revision petition and reject the plaint. 12. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents, inasmuch as, the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 needs to be thrashed out after full-fledged trial. Validity of Hiba having regard to capacity of Donor is a question of fact. So also having regard to the contention of written statement, question - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40433 CRP No. 551 of 2025 of limitation in the case on hand is a mixed question of law and facts. Hence, suit needs to be decided on merits. 13. Needless to emphasize that if the suit is vexatious and the revision petitioners are able to establish before the Trial Court that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is vexatious, defendants are entitled for exemplary costs as is contemplated under Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. With that observation, taking note of the fact that the allegation found in the affidavit in support of application seeking rejection of the plaint is mixed question of law and fact, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petition needs to be dismissed. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50