- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30455 CRP No. 145 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 145 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. C.A. HAMSAVENI D/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.237, 14TH CROSS, AGRAHARA LAYOUT, JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064. 2. SRI.C.A.CHIKKANNA S/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.237, 14TH CROSS, AGRAHARA LAYOUT, JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI GANESH D S S/O LATE. D.N.SUBBU KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT D-202, BRIGADE GATEWAY, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BEHIND ORION MALL, BENGALURU-560 055. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30455 CRP No. 145 of 2026 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.6 IN OS NO.6017/2020 ON THE FILE OF LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE IA NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) 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 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.6 in O.S.No.6017/2020 dated 21.01.2026 by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, whereby the Trial Court dismissed an application that is filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants in the suit are before this Court. 2. The respondent herein has filed a suit for recovery of money. In that suit, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the averments made in the plaint are an imagination of the plaintiff and are - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30455 CRP No. 145 of 2026 false. It is contended that the documents pertaining to the schedule property were handed over to the plaintiff and that he does not have any funds to purchase the properties. The petitioners have issued a notice bringing all aspects of the case to the plaintiff and have cancelled the agreement executed by them in favour of the plaintiff. The Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘MOU’) is relevant, but the plaintiff, while producing all documents, has deliberately not produced the MOU, which shows the mala fide intention of the plaintiff. 4. It is contended that the Agreement of Sale was terminated on 19.07.2017, and the Agreement of Sale was executed on 18.12.2014. The limitation period to file the suit was on or before 17.12.2017. However, the suit was filed only on 30.11.2020. Therefore, the suit itself is barred by limitation. 5. It is further contended that in the reply notice dated 04.09.2017, the plaintiff admitted the existence of the MOU and stated that he would file a suit for recovery of money within 15 days. 6. The Trial Court, in the impugned Order, while dismissing IA No. 6, observed that the learned counsel for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30455 CRP No. 145 of 2026 defendants had filed a synopsis, in which he referred to an MOU containing an arbitration clause. The Trial Court held that even if it is assumed that there is an arbitration clause in the MOU, the plaint could not be rejected on the ground that an arbitration clause exists. At the most, the suit may be referred to arbitration, and the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that there exists an MOU containing an arbitration clause, as contended by the defendants. On this reasoning, the Trial Court found that no grounds were made out for rejection of the plaint and accordingly dismissed the application. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit itself is not maintainable, as there is an arbitration clause in the MOU. The plaintiff suppressed these aspects, and the defendant brought these facts to the notice of the Trial Court. Despite taking cognizance of the same, the Trial Court has dismissed the application. 8. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ameet Lalchand Shah and Others v. Rishabh Enterprises and Another1 and on the judgment 1 (2018) 15 SCC 678 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30455 CRP No. 145 of 2026 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and Others, arising out of Civil Appeal No. 7134 of 2012. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, he submits that there is an arbitration clause and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 9. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners, perused the material on record. The suit is for recovery of money. In the plaint, the plaintiff has stated the cause of action, the manner of filing the suit, and his entitlement to recover money. The defendants have filed their written statement and have referred to the MOU and its arbitration clause. The present application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. It is well settled that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with it. 10. Apart from that, the Court will not consider any other document while deciding an application. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has misrepresented the facts before the Court, and this is an important aspect. If that is so, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30455 CRP No. 145 of 2026 such contention may be considered by the Trial Court while considering the other aspects. But, as far as an application for rejection of the plaint is concerned, the Court cannot look into the written statement. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not come to the rescue of the petitioners. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In the plaint, the Court can only look at the plaint and the documents filed along with it there is no reference to the MOU or the arbitration clause. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs., if any, in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18