- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46127 CRP No. 360 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 360 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B. VENKATASWAMY REDDY SON OF BHADRA REDDY @ GOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 52/10, YARANDAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, ANEKAL TALUK, JIGANI HOBLI AND POST, BENGALURU (URBAN DISTRICT) BENGALURU - 560 105. 2. SMT. ASHA V DAUGHTER OF B. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 52/10, YARANDAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, ANEKAL TALU,K JIGANI HOBLI AND POST, BENGALURU (URBAN DISTRICT) BENGALURU - 560 105. …PETITIONERS (BY MS. CHANDANA G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. FREUD RICHARDSON P, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46127 CRP No. 360 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI. B. KRISHNA REDDY SON OF BHADRA REDDY @ GOWDAPPA A GED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 72, YARANDAHALLI VILLAGE NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL JIGANI POST AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 105. 2. SMT. SHARADAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYANAREDDY WIFE OF MUNISWAMYREDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. SRI. C NANJAMMA WIFE OF LATE JUNJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SMT. SHASHIKALA WIFE OF LATE SHASHIDHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. SRI. MUKUNDA SON OF LATE JUNJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 6. SRI. GOWVARDHAN SON OF LATE JUNJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46127 CRP No. 360 of 2025 RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT YARANDAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI POST - 560 105, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 7. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD HEAD OFFICE AT 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YASHWANTH C, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS NO.3/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL., REJECTING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46127 CRP No. 360 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Miss.Chandana G., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Freud Richardson P., learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. Revision petitioners are defendant Nos.6 and 7 in O.S.No.3/2024 challenging the validity of the order passed in the said suit vide I.A.No.3 filed under order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit for declaration and consequential injunction came to be filed in respect of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties): - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46127 CRP No. 360 of 2025 SCHEDULE A PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property bearing Sy.No.85/1B, measuring an extent of 0-10 guntas out of 0-26 guntas situated at Yarandahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, bounded by: East by: Government Road and property of Venkataswamyreddy West by: Land of Sharadamma D/o Nanjamma Northy by: property of Sunkamma W/o Hanumareddy South by: Road SCHEDULE B PROPERTY ALL that piece and parcel of property bearing Sy.No.85/1B, new Sy.No.88/5 measuring an extent of 0-1 gunta towards north eastern corner out of 0-26 guntas, consisting of water tank of 10,000 liter capacity and commercial crops situated at Yarandahalli village, Jigani post, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, bounded by: East by: Road West by: Property of Sunkamma W/o Hanumareddy - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46127 CRP No. 360 of 2025 North by: Land of Venkataswamyreddy South by: Suit schedule A property belonging to the plaintiff” 3.2. Plaintiff contended that there was a unregistered panchayath palupatti on 25.11.1987 in respect of the family properties wherein the legal representatives of Bhadrareddy settled the family properties. There was some dispute wherein defendant No.6 said to have played fraud on the plaintiff in respect of eight guntas of the land and he fabricated a gift deed in favour of defendant No.7 detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff in respect of ‘B’ schedule property and thus, sought for decreeing of the suit. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.6 and 7 entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia making counter allegations against the plaintiff that it is the plaintiff who played fraud on the defendants. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46127 CRP No. 360 of 2025 5. Defendants Nos.6 and 7 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint vide I.A.No.3. 6. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, by impugned order, dismissed the said application. 7. Validity of the said order is called in question in this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider the plaint averments and documents filed along with the plaint that the cause of action that is shown in the plaint was illusory in nature. Therefore, learned Trial Judge ought not to have entertained the suit further and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent today. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46127 CRP No. 360 of 2025 10. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioners, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that in the pleadings, there is an allegation of fraud by the plaintiff against the defendants and vice-versa. 12. Whenever there is an allegation of fraud, parties are not only required to plead what is the type of fraud that has occurred by furnishing necessary details as is contemplated under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC but is also required to place necessary evidence to establish the said aspect of the matter. 13. In other words, in view of the rival pleadings in the case, the matter requires a full-fledged trial after framing necessary issues. 14. Under such circumstances, entertaining an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is per se impermissible. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46127 CRP No. 360 of 2025 15. Learned Trial Judge has thus rightly considered the said aspect of the matter though not in happy words by assigning proper reasons but the decision arrived at by the learned Trial Judge cannot be faulted with. 16. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62