- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46126 CRP No. 15 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. 15 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. N. RAJANNA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. NAVEENKUMAR S/O N.RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI - 572 102, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANJANADEVI W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. SAVITHA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. JAYALAKSHMI W/O KRISHNAPPA, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46126 CRP No. 15 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI - 572 102, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.04.2022, NOTICE TO R4 TO R11 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED ON IA IN OS No.375/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. 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.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Sampath Bapat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46126 CRP No. 15 of 2022 2. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 in O.S.No.375/2014 are the revision petitioners challenging the order dated 01.12.2021 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru passed in the said suit rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.375/2014, inter alia by contending that the suit properties are the joint family properties and plaintiffs are also having share in the same. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC to reject the plaint by contending that some of the properties which are not relevant for the suit have also been included in the suit schedule and therefore, plaint is to be rejected. 5. Said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46126 CRP No. 15 of 2022 6. Learned Trial Judge by the impugned order, rejected the application filed by the defendants and continued with the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.8 and 9 are before this Court in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the suit properties are not the joint family properties and with ulterior motive and only with an intention to harass defendant Nos.8 and 9, they have been included in the suit. 9. Learned Trial Judge did not take note of the same despite specific defence taken by the revision petitioners in the affidavit in support of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and has mechanically dismissed the application resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46126 CRP No. 15 of 2022 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 noted that admittedly, suit is one for partition. If the plaintiffs have included the properties which are not the joint family properties, defendants may establish the same by placing necessary material evidence on record. 13. If the defendants are successful in establishing such fact with cogent and convincing evidence, obviously, the Trial Court is bound to consider the same and pass suitable orders in rejecting the suit insofar as those properties are concerned. 14. If defendants also successful in establishing that out of avaricious the plaintiffs have included those properties, defendants may insist for suitable cost including the exemplary cost as is contemplated under Section 35A of CPC. 15. With that observation, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 16. Hence, following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46126 CRP No. 15 of 2022 ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2