- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46125 CRP No. 8 of 2022 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. 8 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. G.E. NANJUNDAGOWDA SON OF LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA WIFE OF G E NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BOTH RESIDENTS OF MASTHI MAJOR, GANGASANDRA VILLAGE MASTHI HOBLI AND POST MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DORESWAMY GOWDA G.E, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. G.N. UMARANI D/O LATE G.E. NANJUNDEGOWDA WIFE OF K. MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.143, 6TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. 2. SMT. G.N. ASHARANI D/O G.E. NANJUNDEGOWDA WIFE OF CHETHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.171/A, GIRISH NILAYA GANESHA STREET DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46125 CRP No. 8 of 2022 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2021 PASSED ON IA.NO.III IN OS.NO.218/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR DISMISSING THE IA.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 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.Doreswamy Gowda G. R., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Abhinav R. learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.218/2018 are the revision petitioners challenging the order of dismissal of the application for default filed by the defendants by order dated 24.02.2021. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition before the Senior Civil Judge, Malur in O.S.No.218/2018 in respect of the following properties: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46125 CRP No. 8 of 2022 “ITEM NO.1: All that piece and parcel of the land properties situated at Majara Gangasandra Village Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District:- 1) Survey No.421/1, measuring 5 Acres 38 guntas 2) Survey No.421/2, measuring 5 Acres 3 guntas 3) Survey No.411, measuring 3 Acres 5 guntas, 4) Survey No.422/1, measuring 1 Acre 34 guntas, 5) Survey No.422/2, measuring 2 Acres 22 guntas, 6) Survey No.420/1, measuring 0-05 guntas, 7) Survey No.420/2, measuring 0-21 guntas, 8) Survey No.413/2, measuring 30 guntas, Consisting of well, four borewells, form houses having coconut garden, supota orchard, tamarind trees, mango trees, jackfruit trees, etc, which are commonly bounded on:- East by: Malur- Beraki Main Road, West by: Properties of G.D. Krishnappa and Gowramma, North by: Properties of G.M. Krishnappa, N. Ayyappa, R. Raghunatha Rao, and Krishnoji Rao, South by: Properties of B. Muniyappa, Government tank and G.M. Muniyappa. ITEM NO.2:- All that piece and parcel of the land properties situated at Majara Gangasandra Village Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District:- 1. Survey No.390/4, measuring 1 Acre 3 guntas 2. Survey No.390/3, measuring 1 Acre 17 guntas - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46125 CRP No. 8 of 2022 Consisting of borewells and form houses, having coconut and other trees etc, which are commonly bounded on:- East by: Properties of Erappa and Lakshmaiah, West by: Properties of Malur Beraki Main Road North by: Road leads to Masthi, South by: Properties of Krishnojirao ITEM NO.3:- All that piece and parcel of the land properties situated at Majara Gangasandra Village Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District:- 1. Survey No.448, measuring 2 Acres 33 guntas Consisting of Honge, Jali etc., trees bounded on:- East by: Property of G.M. Krishnappa, West by: Property of Venkateshappa and Muniyappa, North by: Government Oni, South by: Property of G.M. Narayanaswamy. ITEM NO.4:- All that piece and parcel of the land properties situated at Majara Gangasandra Village Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District bearing Survey No.428, measuring 08 guntas Consisting of Banbo bush and other trees bounded on:- East by: Government channel, West by: Property of G. A. Ramaswamy, North by: Property of Salam Sabi and his sons, South by: Property of G. D. Krishnappa.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46125 CRP No. 8 of 2022 4. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia contending that suit is not maintainable in view of the non-impleading necessary parties and not including all necessary properties. It was further contended that suit property are the self acquired properties belonging to Hiriyappa who had executed Will in favour of defendant No.1. 5. An application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC also came to be filed along with the written statement. 6. However, learned Trial Judge without considering the same on merits, noting the fact that there was no representation on behalf of the plaintiffs, dismissed the application for non prosecution. 7. Same is called in question, in this revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46125 CRP No. 8 of 2022 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition as well as the grounds in the affidavit in support of application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC contended that the Trial Court dismissing the application for non prosecution in a hasty manner that too in the period where COVID-19 pandemic period has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 9. He would further contend that plaintiffs have not impleaded all necessary parties to the suit and very fact that plaintiffs have contended that suit properties are the joint family properties is per se incorrect and sought for allowing the application. 10. He would also contend that the application be considered afresh on merits on imposing reasonable cost. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends that application came to be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46125 CRP No. 8 of 2022 dismissed on 25.01.2021 by which time, lockdown was lifted and Courts were functioning normally. 12. He would also contend that at the most, non- inclusion of necessary parties, would be an issue in the trial based on the written statement contentions and that cannot be treated as a ground for rejection of the plaint. 13. He would also contend that question of some of the items of the suit properties are the self acquired properties of the plaintiffs cannot be decided while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC by holding a mini trial and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, suit is of the year 2018. Seven years have elapsed and there is no progress in the suit except amendment being carried out to the plaint by including some more properties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46125 CRP No. 8 of 2022 16. Non-joinder of necessary parties and nature of the suit properties are the issues which are to be framed and considered by the Trial Court based on basis of the rival pleadings. 17. Adjudication of those issues requires recording of the evidence. In other words, when there is a triable issue in a given suit, plaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold by exercising the power vested under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Therefore, on merits, the application needs to be dismissed. 18. Lastly, ground of not affording the fair opportunity cannot also be countenanced in law in view of the fact that on the date of passing the order, Courts had started functioning normally after lifting the lockdown in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. 19. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any good grounds to set aside the impugned order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46125 CRP No. 8 of 2022 20. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and all the defences available to the defendants are kept open to be urged in the trial and defendants may also seek framing of necessary issues with regard to the defence that has been taken if not already framed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK