- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29062 CRP No. 473 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 473 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: SMT. RAMAKKA W/O AVALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER GPA H.A. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O AVALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLPURA TALUK-562101, CHIKKABALLPURA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DILSHAD BEGUM D/O DIVAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SHANTHINAGAR, PRESENTLY R/AT SHANTHINAGAR SIDLAGHATTA TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKABALLPURA DISTRICT – 562 105 2. SMT. SHAMSHAD BEGUM W/O RAHAMATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT MEESGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29062 CRP No. 473 of 2026 SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DIST – 563 135 3. SMT. ERASHAD BEGUM W/O ZAVEED PASHA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT RAHAMATHNAGAR, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN AND TALUK – 561 015, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 4. SMT. GAYITHRI W/O H.A. SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH PET.NO-1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLPURA TALUK-562101, CHIKKABALLPURA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2026, PASSED ON IA IN OS NO. 669/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE IA FILED U/O VII RULE 11(A) (B) AND (D) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29062 CRP No. 473 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in O.S.No.669/2023 dated 15.04.2026 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura, where an application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) R/w Section 151 of CPC is dismissed, the petitioner-defendant is before this Court. 2.The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has filed O.S.No.422 /2015 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction before the Principal Junior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura. The plaintiff had filed a memo stating that the said Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and to withdraw O.S.No.422/2015 and represent the suit before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura. The suit is re- numbered as O.S.No.669/2023. In that the defendant had filed an IA seeking rejection of the plaint. 3. It is the case of the defendant, that the suit is filed after 34 years for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and plaintiffs have not produced any RTC or revenue documents and also not proposed any tax paid receipts of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29062 CRP No. 473 of 2026 suit schedule property. Further the plaintiff themselves produced the RTC copies wherein the defendants name is mentioned from the date of suit in O.S.No.422/2015. It is stated that, even though the plaintiffs have alleged that they have filed Revenue Appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura in the year 2015 which gave directions to Tahsildar Chikkaballapura, is totally incorrect and false. Further, one Allabaksha and others have filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura and the same was dismissed on 19.04.2012. It is stated that there is no cause of action and the plaintiffs have cleverly drafted and not disclosed the facts and did clever pleading in the suit plaint and it is stated that it is duty bound in law to disclose all the material facts in accordance with law. The omission of the single material fact will lead to an incomplete cause of action and in such circumstances, plaint is bad in law and the same is liable to be rejected. It is stated that the suit is a collusive suit as their father has now expired and the plaintiffs have now filed this instant suit in the year 2015 after 34 years thereby questioning the legality of the sale deed which is contrary to the provisions of law of Limitation and consequently the plaint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29062 CRP No. 473 of 2026 has to be rejected inlimine. It is stated that the plaintiffs are playing fraud on the Court and as per the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2006-9-CC-262 observed that suppression or failure to disclose, what a party is bound to disclose may amount to fraud and thus no cause of action for the suit and alleged cause of action is imaginary, illusionary and created for the purpose of the suit and hence, the plaint plea has to be rejected. 4. The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed the said IA. While dismissing the said IA, the trial Court has observed that plaintiff have challenged the validity of the gift deed dated 05.08.2013 and the sale deed dated 01.10.2015. In para No.6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has clearly stated about, when the cause of action arose for them to file the present suit. Where the cause of action as stated by the plaintiffs at paragraph No.6 of the plaint has really arisen or not is a fact to be determined by the trial Court only after full-fledged trial. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have clearly stated as to when the cause of action has arisen. Under such circumstances, the said ground urged by defendant No.1 in the present application is not tenable in law and accordingly dismissed the same. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29062 CRP No. 473 of 2026 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the finding of the trial Court is contrary to facts and contrary to law. The trial Court has failed to consider the contention of the defendant and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard. It is stated that the cause of action as per the plaint pleadings has not mentioned any date, month or the year. The suit is miserably barred by Limitation, the trial Court ought to have considered all these issues, where the suit is filed almost after 3 decades. All these aspects were not considered by the trial Court and the order impugned needs to be set aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. According to the defendant the suit is barred by limitation, no cause of action is disclosed. Further the plaintiff has come to the Court with suppression of the material facts and the plaint has to be rejected. All the allegations that are made and the grounds that are raised by the defendant cannot be considered by the Court in an application that is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It is settled principle of law that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court will look at the plaint and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29062 CRP No. 473 of 2026 the documents that are filed along with the plaint. But the Court will not look into any other material or any other pleadings that are raised by the defendant and the trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has made out a cause of action and remaining other grounds that are taken can be decided by the Court during the course of the trial, but not at this stage and this court finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. All pending I.As., in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE P TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13