- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45892 CRP No. 477 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.477 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR RAMADURGA HIGH SCHOOL, VIJAYANAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562159 2. SRI VEERABHADRAIAH S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT BANDARAMAMMANA BEEDHI, BALAGERI, WARD NO 16, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562159 3. SRI ESHWARAIAH S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT BANDARAMAMMANA BEEDHI BALAGERI, WARD NO.16, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562159 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VENKATESH H N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KUMARI D/O LATE NARAYANAIAH @ NARAYANI, W/O LAKKAIAH, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45892 CRP No. 477 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A NO 3099, WARD NO.16, BALAGERI, RAMANAGARA TOWN – 562159 2. SMT.HANUMAKKA @ KALA D/O LATE NARAYANAIAH @ NARAYANI, W/O HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A YELIGENAHALLI COLONY, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TLAUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -561201 (SMT KANTHAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAIAH @ NARAYANI, WAS PLAINTIFF NO.1 BEFORE COURT BELOW SINCE DIED DURING PENDENCY OF SUIT, REP. BY HER LR’S RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN) HENCE NOT MADE PARTY TO THIS PETITION …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2020 PASSED ON I.A.I IN O.S.NO.172/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA REJECTING THE IA NO-1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45892 CRP No. 477 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Venkatesh H.N., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Defendants in O.S.No.172/2019 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure by Order dated 18.03.2021 in this revision petition. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for the following relief in respect of following properties (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property). “Wherefore, the plaintiffs humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants as follows: 1. For declaration declaring that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. 2. Consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their henchmen's, agents, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45892 CRP No. 477 of 2021 attorney's, anybody acting on behalf of them interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. 3. For cost of this suit and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deems to fit to grant under the circumstances of the suit in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE The part and parcel of the agricultural property land bearing survey No.106/3, 107/3 totally measuring 3 acre 0-26 guntas out of that the plaintiffs portion measuring to an extent of 1 acre 0-09 guntas, the said extent is spread over the each other above said survey numbers situated at Channamanahalli Village, Kailancha Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District, and bounded as: East by : and of Kuntahucchaiah, West by : Road, North by : Land of Eraiah South by : Land of Defendants.” 5. Suit was contested by the defendants by contending that earlier proceedings between the parties including the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal and the revenue authorities in respect of mutation entries and the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. Therefore present - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45892 CRP No. 477 of 2021 suit with the prayer of declaration and consequential relief is not only barred by limitation, but is nothing but abuse of process of law. 6. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs and learned trial Judge by impugned order rejected the said application and allowed the suit to continue. 7. The correctness of the said order is assailed in the present revision petition. 8. Sri H.N. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the suit per se is barred by limitation. 9. He would also invite the attention of this Court on the application filed by the plaintiffs in the very same suit seeking for temporary injunction and very same learned Judge rejected the said application noting that prima facie title is not made out in the plaint and defendant has made out a contra title in respect of the suit property. Therefore, continuation of the suit is nothing but waste of time and abuse of process of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45892 CRP No. 477 of 2021 law and is only meant to harass the defendants and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, Sri Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit is one for declaration and consequential reliefs. 13. In the earlier proceedings, the relief claimed by the plaintiffs was not the same relief. Further, if the Plaintiffs fail to make out the title, necessary suit will have to be dismissed. 14. Insofar as the ground of limitation is concerned, cause of action paragraph in the plaint would make out a fresh cause of action to seek for declaratory relief. 15. Whether at all the suit is barred by limitation or not cannot be decided at the threshold only by the averments made by the parties in the plaint and written statement. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45892 CRP No. 477 of 2021 16. The question of limitation is not always a ground for rejection of the plaint unless it is capable of deducing by mathematical precision. 17. In majority of cases, it is the mixed question of law and facts. In such circumstances, the parties have to proceed with the trial. 18. At the most, if there is no issue framed by the trial Court with regard to the question of limitation, petitioners can seek for the amendment of the issues by filing necessary application under Order XIV of Code of Civil Procedure. 19. Further, ultimately if the suit is dismissed and defendants are able to establish before the Court that the suit is a vexatious suit, defendants can plead for imposition of appropriate costs including the exemplary costs as is contemplated under Section 35A of Code of Civil Procedure. 20. With that observation following order is passed: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR