- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54255 CRP No. 314 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 314 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. K. KUBERA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE DODDAKARIGOWDA R/A HAROHALLI VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. THEJESH N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BUNDAPPA @ BUNDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE DODDAKARIGOWDA R/A RAMPURA VILLAGE K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434. 2. LAKSHMAMMA W/O DODDAKARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O GIRIYARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINSKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK. MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54255 CRP No. 314 of 2024 3. JAYAMMA W/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O MUDUGERE VILLAGE, K.R.PETE TALUK - 571 426. 4. NARAYANA W/O DODDAKARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. R/O MUDUVINA KODI VILLAGE, K.R. PETE TALUK - 571 426. 5. MARIGOWDA S/O DODDAKARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O KRISHNARAJASAGARA, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK - 571 438. 6. SHIVANNA S/O DODDAKARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56, R/O HAROHALLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 434. 7. ANITHA W/O KUBERA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O HAROHALLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 434. 8. GOWRAMMA DEAD BY LRS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54255 CRP No. 314 of 2024 8(A). KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 8(B). KANTAMMA D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 8(C). ANNAIAH D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 8(A) TO (C) R/O GIRIYARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 434. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANAPATHI SUBBARAYA BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.II IN OS NO.6/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA., REJECTING THE IA NO.II IN OS NO.6/2021 FILED UNDEDR ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) R/W ORDER 9 RULE 9, ORDER 22 RULE 9 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:54255 CRP No. 314 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Thejesh N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Aditya Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Ganapathi Subbaraya Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is defendant No.2, who had filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under. 3.1. Respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.72/2006 for partition and separate possession in respect of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54255 CRP No. 314 of 2024 following property (hereinafter referred to as suit property): “Land situate at Anthanahalli village, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, bearing Sy.Nos.: 1. Sy.No.77/2 – P1 measuring 3 acre 13 guntas 2. Sy.No.86 measuring 1 acre 00 gunta 3. Sy.No.86 measuring 1 acre 00 gunta (Note: Remaining properties will be included after obtaining RTC extracts with the permission on the Court) 3.2. In the said suit, sole defendant died and there was no proper steps taken by the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of sole defendant on record and as such, said suit came to be dismissed as abated by order dated 12.06.2012. 3.3. Instead of reviving the suit by filing an application under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC, belatedly a second suit for partition in respect of 10 properties came - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54255 CRP No. 314 of 2024 to be filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.6/2021 against the legal representatives of the sole defendant in O.S.No.72/2006 and others. 3.4. Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.6/2021 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC that there is no cause of action for the second suit inasmuch as the cause which arose in February, 2006 for filing the suit in O.S.No.72/2006 which got terminated in view of abatement of the said suit. Therefore, second suit on the same cause of action is not maintainable. 3.5. In O.S.No.6/2021, in the cause of action paragraph, it has been mentioned that the cause arose in the year 2009 and 12.06.2012 and about two months earlier to the filing of the suit. 3.6. In other words, there is no specific averment in the cause of action paragraph to maintain the suit for partition, no doubt, with additional defendants and additional properties. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54255 CRP No. 314 of 2024 4. Learned Trial Judge however dismissed the application on the ground that the cause of action to file the suit in O.S.No.6/2021 is different cause of action. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 has filed the present revision petition. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent filed a memo. Memo reads as under: “The undersigned counsel craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to revive O.S.No.72/2006 by filing necessary application to set aside the abatement of the said suit vide order dated 26.06.2012. Hence, this memo.” 7. Placing the memo on record, revision petition needs to be allowed by permitting the plaintiff to revive the suit in O.S.No.72/2006. 8. However, it is the apprehension of learned counsel for the respondents that there are other properties - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54255 CRP No. 314 of 2024 to the joint family and there are other persons to be arraigned as additional defendants and such permission to be granted while disposing of the revision petition. 9. Same is opposed by learned counsel for the revision petitioner by contending that when a suit is abated, no formal decree is passed and there is no adjudication of the lis on merits and Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC provides for setting aside the abatement and to adjudicate the suit on merits providing satisfactory reasons are assigned by a party who seeks setting aside abatement. 10. Suffice to say that, if such an application is filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, learned Trial Judge shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 11. After the suit is restored, it is always open for the plaintiff to file necessary application to implead additional defendants and also include other properties which plaintiff claims as joint family properties. Needless - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54255 CRP No. 314 of 2024 to emphasize that defendants have right to oppose the same in accordance with law. 12. With that observation, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed. ii. Consequently, application filed by defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in O.S.No.6/2021 is hereby allowed and plaint is rejected. iii. However, rejection of the suit in O.S.No.6/2021 would not come in the way of respondent/plaintiff seeking setting aside abatement of O.S.No.72/2006 and contest the suit in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27