- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 384 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: SMT MALA W/O SRI. SUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 173, SINGAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHIVALINGA S S/O SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SRI VENKATESH S. S/O SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SRI. SUBBANNA S/O LATE VENKATARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.142 VARDARAJASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, SINGAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYARANAYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097. 4. SMT. BHARATHI.S W/O SRI. B.H. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.475, BISUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PIN: 561 203 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO.1402/2024 ON THE FILE OF XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., REJECTING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed questioning the order passed on IA No.3 in OS No.1402/2024 dated 25.02.2026 by the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. The petitioner before this Court is defendant No.3 in the suit. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs who are respondents No.1 and 2 herein had filed suit in OS No.1402/2024 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, seeking declaration that the Sale Deed dated 01.01.2024 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and also for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.3 from interfering with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have also filed IA No.1 for temporary injunction restraining defendant No.3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. Defendant No.3, the petitioner herein had filed IA under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, to reject the plaint. That came to be dismissed by order impugned. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The trial Court while dismissing the IA that is filed seeking rejection of the plaint has observed that at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC, the Court is required to look only at the averments made in the plaint, assuming them to be true, without referring to the defence set up by the defendants or the documents relied upon by them. On a careful and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they are in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 possession of the property since the year 2010. The suit schedule property was constructed and they are in settled possession. Defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant Nos.2 and 3 has created fabricated documents and executed a Sale Deed dated 01.01.2024 in favour of defendant No.3 and the said Sale Deed is alleged to be fraudulent, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 is attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs. The trial Court has observed that rejection of plaint is permissible only when the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or is barred by any law on the face of it. In the present case, the plaint cannot be said to be barred by law nor it can be held that no cause of action is disclosed. It is also observed that the contentions raised by defendant No.3 involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and accordingly, rejected the I.A.No.3 4. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.3/petitioner submits that the suit of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 plaintiffs is speculative in nature and it does not disclose any cause of action. The plaintiffs claim that they are residing in unauthorized construction and made an application for regularisation on 29.07.2016 and produced only photocopy of the alleged acknowledgement. It is submitted that Section 94-CC of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 states that any person is in an authorized occupation of any revenue land belonging to Government and has constructed dwelling house on such a land prior to 01.01.2015 in urban area may on such application made to the authority then they can consider the same. 5. It is stated that the very foundation laid by the plaintiffs is on the alleged unauthorized construction, but the law says their application was beyond the cut-off date and it was in a City Corporation which clearly shows that the plaintiffs have no legal right to file the suit for the alleged reliefs as there is no cause of action. Moreover, the alleged right is only a contingent right and not a vested right, and the trial Court has failed to take into - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 consideration all these aspects and rejected the application. 6. It is submitted that in a suit, if no cause of action is disclosed or the suit is barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, the Court would not permit the plaintiffs to unnecessarily protract the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to sham litigation, so that the further judicial time is not wasted. It is submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the grounds that are raised by defendant No.3 and in a mechanical manner without giving proper reasons has dismissed the application. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. 8. The suit is filed seeking a declaration that the Sale deed dated 01.01.2024 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and also sought for permanent injunction - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 against defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 has filed an IA seeking rejection of the plaint. This Court has perused the IA that is filed. In that, it is stated with regard to the unauthorized construction and there is no cause of action. It is her case that the clever drafting of the plaint has created illusion of a cause of action and the Court has to nip it in the bud so that bogus litigation will end. Petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court and it is stated that by taking the aforesaid facts the plaint has to be rejected. 9. This Court on plain reading of the documents and the reasons stated and the observations made by the trial Court while dismissing the application makes it very clear that the petitioner has not made out a case for rejection of the plaint. All the facts that are pleaded by the petitioner with regard to the cause of action that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action cannot be accepted. Thus, a meaningful reading of the plaint would disclose that the plaintiffs have stated that how the cause of action - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 arose for them to file the suit. The petitioner has stated several aspects on the merits of the matter which do not form part of the plaint. While considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the Court can look at the averments in the plaint and the documents which are filed along with the plaint and apart from those two, the Court will not look at any other document for the purpose of considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The trial Court considering all these aspects and the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court has rightly rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. ii. All the contentions are left open to the parties. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28391 CRP No. 384 of 2026 iii. All pending IAs if any, in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11