- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010148392026 NC: 2026:KHC:45436 CRP No. 190 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 190 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. PALLADIUM CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT NO.462, PHOENIX MALL COMPOUND SENAPATHI BOPAT MARG LOWER PAREL MUMBA—400 013 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY APPROVALS MR. RAVISANKAR 2. PLATINUM HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING BEEN AMALGAMATED WITH THE PETITIONER NO. 1 COMPANY VIDE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY DATED 02.05.2014 IN COMPANY SCHEME PETITION 57 AND 58 OF 2014 PRESENTLY AT AT NO.462, PHOENIX MALL COMPOUND SENAPATHI BOPAT MARG LOWER PAREL Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010148392026 NC: 2026:KHC:45436 CRP No. 190 of 2026 MUMBA—400 013 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.SUNDARA RAMAN M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SR. MANJUNATH U.J., S/O LATE S. UDAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 308, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST WARD, VAAPASANDRA, CHIKKABALLAPURA- 562 101 2. SMT. VARALAKSHMI, D/O SRI. MUNIYA THIMMAIYAPPA, C/O LATE S. UDAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 565, 24TH WARD, KEERTHANA-KRUTHKKA NILAYA, VAPASANDRA MILK DAIRY, OPP. RANGANATHASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 101 3. SMT ANNAMMA D/O SRI MUNIYA THIMMAIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 84/16, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS, BHOVIPALYA, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560 008 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. III IN OS NO. 7552/24 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010148392026 NC: 2026:KHC:45436 CRP No. 190 of 2026 DISMISSING THE IA NO. III FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) 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 29.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.III in O.S.No.7552/2024 by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru, the petitioners/defendants are before this Court. 2. The respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.7552/2024 seeking injunction. In the suit, the defendant filed I.A.No.III under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to reject the plaint as it is barred by law fails to disclose material cause of action, and further the suit is barred by limitation. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the transaction falls under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Further, the sale deeds are of the year 1965 and 2008, and the suit was filed in 2024. The suit is barred by limitation, and there is no cause of action for filing - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010148392026 NC: 2026:KHC:45436 CRP No. 190 of 2026 the suit. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application. 3. While dismissing the application, the trial Court observed that the cause of action is a mixed question of fact and law and, at this juncture, the Court cannot discuss or go to the other documents produced by the defendants. While perusing the plaint averments and plaint documents, the trial Court did not find any reason to reject the plaint. Further, the court is empowered to deal with the matter, even though it falls under the PTCL Act. 4. Learned Senior counsel representing the counsel for the petitioners submits that when several contentions are raised by the defendant, the trial court has not given any findings on all the issues raised. It is submitted that, in a mechanical manner, relying on certain judgments, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.III, and there was no application of mind. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the trial Court has rightly considered the matter and - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010148392026 NC: 2026:KHC:45436 CRP No. 190 of 2026 passed an order, and there are no grounds to interfere. At the threshold, these disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by the court. They can only be decided after a full-fledged trial, and the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. As many as four grounds are raised by the defendant. This Court has perused the order. On the face of it, the order discloses that the grounds raised by the defendants were not considered. When an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must consider it on its merits, and the Court cannot dismiss the application in a mechanical manner. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court failed to consider the grounds taken by the defendants. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order dated 29.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.III in O.S.No.7552/2024 by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010148392026 NC: 2026:KHC:45436 CRP No. 190 of 2026 ii. The trial Court shall consider the application in the light of the grounds raised by the defendants. iii. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24