- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11152-DB RFA No. 2563 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2563 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: DR. B.L. ASHA W/O DR. N.S. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT. SRINIVASA CLINIC "PUNARVASU", JAYANAGARA EAST SHETTIHALLY MAIN ROAD TUMAKURU CITY-572 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, FOR SRI. PRATHAM N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. MADHURA W/O LATE K. LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT. #376, 3RD CROSS Digitally signed by RAKSHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11152-DB RFA No. 2563 of 2025 2ND LINK ROAD, SIT EXTENSION TUMAKURU CITY-572 101 2. B.L. DIVAKAR S/O LATE LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT. # 376, 3RD CROSS 2ND LINK ROAD, SIT EXTENSION TUMAKURU CITY-572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2025 PASSED ON IA No.VI IN OS No.136/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE IA No.VI FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11152-DB RFA No. 2563 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed challenging the Order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Tumakuru ('trial Court' for short) in O.S.No.136/2019. 2. Sri. G.V. Chandrashekar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court pending consideration of the IA filed by the plaintiff seeking for amendment of the plaint, entertained the later application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint, which is impermissible, in view of the law laid down by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Bharat Travellers v. Sumitrabai Vinayakrao Buty reported in 2017 (6) Mh.L.J 703. 3. Per contra, Sri. Chandrashekar. L, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 fairly submits that the rejection of the plaint by the trial Court is fully justified. However, insofar as the proposition of law, that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11152-DB RFA No. 2563 of 2025 without considering the application for amendment of plaint when it is pending, entertaining the application for rejection of plaint, would run contrary to the settled proposition of law. Hence, he seeks to remand the matter to the trial Court to reconsider both the applications on merits. 4. We have heard the arguments on either side and perused the materials on record. 5. The records indicate that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the defendants have filed a detailed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. On 07.09.2020, the plaintiff filed IA No.5 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking for amendment of the plaint. The defendants filed IA No.6 under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint. The trial Court considering the application for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11152-DB RFA No. 2563 of 2025 rejection of the plaint on merits allowed the same under the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 and accordingly rejected the plaint. It is to be noticed that plaintiff has sought for amendment of the plaint. If such an amendment is considered, the question of considering the rejection would not arise is the contentions urged by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Be that as it may, the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint is pending, it would be appropriate for the trial Court to consider the said application first and thereafter take a decision with regard to the application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint. We agree with the exposition of law laid down by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Bharat Travellers's case (supra) at Paragraph No.13, which is extracted herein below "13. x x x x x As held by our Court in the case of Pramod v. Shantaram, reported in 2017 (3) Mh.LJ. 223, whenever an application for amendment is filed in the face of an application by the opponent for rejection of the plaint, the former application would have to be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11152-DB RFA No. 2563 of 2025 considered first on its merits before considering the application for rejection of the plaint. x x x x x". Hence, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Tumakuru in O.S.No.136/2019, is set aside. (iii) The trial Court is directed to consider IA No.5, filed for seeking amendment of plaint first and thereafter, consider IA No.6 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (iv) The suit is restored to file. (v) The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 18.03.2026. (vi) The observations made by this Court would not come in the way of the trial Court while considering the applications on merits. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11152-DB RFA No. 2563 of 2025 No order as to costs. All pending interlocutory applications are disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6