- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28781 CRP No. 929 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 929 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: MR. JIYARAM CHOUDHARY AGE 51 YEARS, S/O. DHANARAMJI CHOWDARY, RESIDING AT NO.E-256, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, R C PURAM, BENGALURU- 560 021 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S VICTOR MANOHARAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SHIVASHANKAR K S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGE 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.149, 1ST MAIN 4TH CROSS, HOSA ROAD, ELECTRONICS CITY POST, BENGALURU- 560 100. 2. MR. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. LATE. MUNINANJAREDDY, RESIDING AT NO.135, AT STREET, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 068. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28781 CRP No. 929 of 2025 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2025 PASSED ON I.A NO.5 IN OS.NO.1697/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ODER VII RULE 11(a) 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 The present civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.5 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in OS.No.1697/2018 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the defendant is before this Court. 2. The respondent herein has filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 19.02.2025 against defendant No.1, and an injunction is sought against the other defendants. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant had filed I.A. No. 5 under Order VII Rule 11(a) seeking rejection of the plaint for failure to disclose the cause of action. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28781 CRP No. 929 of 2025 3. The defendant has stated in the affidavit in support of the IA that the suit is filed on 23.11.2018 against Mr. Mohan Reddy and three others and the 1st defendant died on 25.09.2015. The suit that is filed against dead person for specific performance is not maintainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the plaintiff seeks to amend the prayer that the judgment passed in OS.No.1118/2011 and OS.No.1122/2011 against dead person is not binding. It is stated that the plaintiff had harassed the 2nd defendant to sell the property and therefore he was forced to sell the property which had compelled him to withdraw the suit. In the suit, the name of the defendant No.1 is shown as M. Mohan Reddy S/o. Munireddy and defendant No.5 is shown as Srinivasa Reddy S/o late Muninarajareddy and therefore he is no way concerned or connected with the suit schedule property and he is not the father of the 1st defendant. It is stated that plaintiff ought to have made an application to bring the LR’s of the deceased defendant No.1 instead of impersonating as father of the deceased/1st defendant which is totally unjust and untenable. It is stated that plaintiff in the cause of action para stated that “when the 1st defendant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28781 CRP No. 929 of 2025 entered into agreement with plaintiff in respect of suit property on 19.02.2015 and subsequently when the plaintiff demanded to perform his part of contract by 1st defendant and failed to do so. And when plaintiff got issued legal notice on 23.08.2018 by RPAD and 1st defendant failed to comply with it” therefore when the person himself is not alive the cause of action does not survive for consideration, hence they have come up with this application. 4. The trial Court had rejected the same by order impugned and while rejecting the IA, the trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant No.1 and his legal heirs and to declare that the Sale deed executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 is not binding on the plaintiff and to restrain the defendant Nos.2 to 4 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. According to the defendant the suit is filed against the dead person and same is not maintainable. 5. The trial court observed that since the defendant No.4 has invoked the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28781 CRP No. 929 of 2025 Court is bound to consider only the plaint and documents annexed to the plaint. On perusal of the plaint and documents annexed, it is observed that the plaintiff has made out a cause of action thereby stating that the cause of action arose when the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and subsequently when the plaintiff demanded to perform his part of contract by the defendant No.1, which, the defendant No.1 failed to do and thereby the plaintiff has issued the legal notice. 6. The allegation about the case filed against the dead person, on the pleading of the defendant an application under Order VII Rule 11 cannot be considered and Order VII Rule 11 of CPC extends only cause of action barred by law or payment of deficit court fee etc. Whether defendant No.1 deceased prior to filing of the suit, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed and whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable are all subject to trial, and the plain reading of the plaint clearly discloses the cause of action for the suit and accordingly IA is dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28781 CRP No. 929 of 2025 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the trial court without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and without proper appreciating the plaint averments had rejected the application, which has resulted in total miscarriage of justice and further the order is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. When the suit is filed against a dead person and no other legal representatives are brought on record, the cause of action does not survive against other defendants as the relief sought is for specific performance. It is submitted that the learned judge has not appreciated the well settled principles and the discretion can be exercised both at the threshold of the proceedings and in the absence of any statutory instruction at any stage of the subsequent proceedings. This has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that when the suit was filed on 23.11.2018 the defendant died on 25.09.2015 and question of seeking specific performance against the dead person will not arise and all these aspects were not appreciated by the trial Court. It is submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28781 CRP No. 929 of 2025 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement. According to the defendant, the 1st defendant is no more and the suit is filed against the dead person without bringing LR’s on record. The trial Court has rightly held that, while considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court can look at the plaint and any documents filed in support of the prayer. However, the Court cannot travel beyond that, basing on the pleadings of the defendant in the written statement or in the affidavit. Court cannot consider whether the defendant No.1 is alive or not and whether the plaintiff can maintain the suit. All these issues can only be decided after adducing necessary evidence and in the course of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court had rightly considered and dismissed the suit, and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28781 CRP No. 929 of 2025 ORDER i. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. ii. Pending I.As if any, in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29