- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.571 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NARASIMHA HEGDE S/O RAMA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574230 2. K VENKATRAMAMA HEGDE S/O RAMA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT SHRI RAMANA HOUSE, UMABHAG, D.NO.1-17-1254/5, MDD LANE, CHILIMBI, MANGALORE, D.K.-575015 3. DAMODHARA HEGDE S/O RAMA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.- 574230 4. SMT.AMITHA HEGDE W/O K.MANJUNATHA HEGDE AGEDA BOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD NEAR ARUNA TALKIES Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023 PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K PIN 574 230 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. M.V. KIRAN S/O M P VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. MR M V THARUN KUMAR S/O M P VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT RATHNAGIRI ESTATE, MUTTIL HOUSE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-673 575. 3. WILLIAM D’ SOUZA S/O ANTHONI D SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SOUZA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANIKETH FOR SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 15.10.2025) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2023 PASSED ON I.A No.VI IN O.S.37/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K, DISMISSING THE I.A.No.VI FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a)(b)(c) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023 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 Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Aniketh, for Sachin B.S, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Defendants are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of their application I.A.No. 6 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b)(c)(d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A suit for possession was filed initially in O.S.No.37/2017. Plaint got amended and included the prayer of declaration in the suit. 3.2 According to the defendants, the suit is barred by limitation on the face of the record and so also there is no cause of action and court fee paid is also insufficient. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023 3.3 Application filed by the defendants was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing written objections. 4. Learned Trial Judge after taking note of the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application of the defendants by the impugned order dated 16.06.2023. 5. The validity of the dismissal of the application is called in question in this revision petition. 6. Sri Ravishankar Shatry, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds that in the revision petition vehemently contented that the suit before the Trial Court per se is barred by limitation and the said aspect of the matter is not taken note of by the learned Trial Judge. 7. Further, he also alleges that the court fee paid is insufficient and there is no cause of action to the suit and as such, dismissal of the I.A.No.6 has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, supports the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, this is the second time that the parties have approached this Court. 11. Earlier plaintiffs had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 17225/2021, wherein they questioned the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for amendment. 12. However this Court by the Order dated 18.10.2021 allowed the said writ petition and directed that the suit should be expedited as early as possible but within an outer limit of 18 months from the date of receipt of the Order passed in Writ Petition. 13. Thereafter, the present application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) is filed by the defendants. 14. Because of the pendency of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Trial Court did not dispose of the suit as directed by this Court in the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023 15. Further, the question of limitation that is raised in the application which was subject matter of the impugned order is a mixed question of law and fact. 16. Again, if the court fee paid is insufficient, there will be an issue and plaintiffs would be called upon to make good the shortage of court fee, if any, at the end of the Trial. 17. Cause of action is a bundle of facts and it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue and throw away the plaint especially when this Court in W.P No.17225/2021 has found it that the amendment to the plaint is necessary. 18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, impugned order needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 19. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision question is dismissed. (ii) However, the Trial Court is directed to comply the Order dated 18.10.2021 passed by this Court in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023 W.P No.17225/2021 by seeking reasonable extension. (iii) Needless to emphasize that parties shall co- operate for the early disposal of the suit. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34