- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31549 CRP No. 374 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 374 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: K. K. JALAJA D/O K.M. KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAJANAHALLI GRAMA, KUNDURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK - 573 128 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: T. R. MANJUNATH S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O TIPPANAHALLI GRAMA, KUNDURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK - 573 128 …RESPONDENT THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.04.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.330/2018 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALUR., Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31549 CRP No. 374 of 2026 REJECTING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SEC.151 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 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.330/2018 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Alur, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court. 2. The respondent herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.7/1999 against the father of the petitioner herein in respect of the suit schedule property, seeking a declaration of title. The said suit in O.S.No.7/1999 was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.02.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred R.A.No.402/2005, which was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed in the suit. Against that, RSA.No.1984/2011 was also dismissed by order dated 04.12.2014. Then the respondent filed R.P.No.73/2016 seeking review of the order, which was also dismissed. Then the respondent herein instituted - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31549 CRP No. 374 of 2026 O.S.No.330/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Alur, seeking relief of permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs in respect of the same suit schedule property in O.S.No.7/1999. 3. The petitioner/defendant had filed I.A.No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata. That was rejected by the impugned order. 4. While dismissing I.A.No.1, the trial Court observed that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be considered by looking at the plaint averments and the documents produced along with the plaint, and the Court cannot look into the defendant's defence or the documents produced by the defendant. A bare perusal of the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint does not make out anything with regard to O.S.No.7/1999, and in order to appreciate the issue involved in O.S.No.7/19999, the documents produced by the defendants have to be looked into, which requires trial. The contentions raised by the defendant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31549 CRP No. 374 of 2026 with regard to res judicata have to be decided at the time of trial because it is a mixed question of law and fact, and accordingly, the I.A. was rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court failed to consider the I.A. filed by the defendant, stating that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by res judicata. It is submitted that when the litigation between the parties in respect of the very same property had already attained finality and the suit for declaration was dismissed, the suit for injunction is not maintainable. It is submitted that the plea raised by the petitioner does not require evidence and the Court can consider it on its merits. The person who has come to the Court seeking the relief of injunction should come with clean hands. Respondent is not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. The trial Court failed to consider all these aspects. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. It is settled law that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments in the plaint and the documents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31549 CRP No. 374 of 2026 produced with the plaint are required to be seen. The defendant's defence or the documents filed by the defendant cannot be looked into. If the defendant makes out a point from the plaint pleadings and the documents that the suit has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the trial Court would consider the same and pass orders. Further, in this case, according to the petitioner, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, which was rejected and has attained finality by virtue of the dismissal of RSA. None of the documents regarding the suit has been filed before the Court by the plaintiff. Now, by way of this written statement and by filing of IA, the defendant has raised these contentions and, according to the defendant, the suit is barred by res judicata. That can only be decided by the trial Court after framing issues and recording the evidence of the parties, so as to determine whether the question of res judicata applies or not. But it cannot be done at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The order passed by the trial Court is a well considered one and, as per the settled principles of law, this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31549 CRP No. 374 of 2026 ORDER i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56