Karnataka High Court

Sri Muniyappa vs Smt Rathnamma on 12 June, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:20181
                                                         CRP No. 379 of 2025


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                           BEFORE

                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                         CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 379 OF 2025 (IO)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI MUNIYAPPA
                   S/O SRI CHOWDAPPA,
                   AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
                   R/O YESHWANTHPURA VILLAGE,
                   NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
                   HOSAKOTE TALUK,
                   BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI S.RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
Location: High     1.    SMT. RATHNAMMA
Court of
Karnataka                S/O LATE VENKATESH,
                         AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

                   2.    SRI GOPAL K.,
                         S/O LATE H.KEMPANNA,
                         AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

                   3.    SRI K.JAYARAME GOWDA
                         S/O LATE H.KEMPANNA,
                         AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:20181
                                          CRP No. 379 of 2025


HC-KAR




4.   SRI K.SRINIVAS
     S/O LATE H.KEMPANNA,
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

     THE RESPONDENTS ARE
     RESIDENTS OF YESHWANTHPURA VILLAGE,
     NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
     HOSAKOTE TALUK,
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.


                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)



     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SEC.115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.III UNDER ORDER VII
RULE 11(a) AND (d) READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC, DATED
25.03.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
HOSAKOTE, IN O.S.NO.1175/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                        ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

order dated 25-03-2025, which rejects the application of the

NC: 2025:KHC:20181

HC-KAR

petitioner filed Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC in I.A.No.3 seeking

rejection of the plaint.

2. Heard Sri S Ramakrishna Hegde, learned counsel

appearing for petitioner and Sri G A Srikante Gowda, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. The petitioner is the defendant, the respondents are

the plaintiffs. A suit comes to be instituted by the respondents

in O.S.No.873 of 2019 seeking declaration and permanent

injunction against the petitioner. The proceedings go on.

Written statement is filed, issues are framed on 23-3-2021 and

the trial is now fast progressing. The learned counsel for the

respondents submits that at the stage of cross-examination of

P.W.1., the petitioner/defendant comes up with an application

in I.A.No.3 of 2024 seeking rejection of the plaint, on the score

that it does not divulge any cause of action and is hopelessly

barred by limitation. On both the scores, the matter is

contested under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The concerned

Court passes an order rejecting the application on the score the

cause of action did arise to the plaintiffs in the year 2018 when

there was disturbance with the peaceful possession of the

NC: 2025:KHC:20181

HC-KAR

plaintiffs by the defendant and therefore, the suit filed in the

year 2019 was well within limitation. Insofar as the plea of

cause of action is concerned, the concerned Court clearly holds

that plaint averments clearly depicts cause of action. The

rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 is what has

driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that the averments in the plaint would

clearly indicate that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs

to file the suit, as the sale deed upon which the plaintiffs would

derive their right is of the year 1972 and after 1972 there is no

litigation that is projected by the plaintiffs to derive cause of

action to file the suit in the year 2019. He would contend that

on both the counts of loss of cause of action and limitation, the

plaint ought to have been rejected. The rejection of the

application is erroneous and contrary to the judgments of the

Apex Court. He would seek to place reliance upon the

judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of NIKHILA

DIVYANG MEHTA v. HITESH P SANGHVI rendered in

S.L.P.(C) No.13459 of 2024 and RAMISETTY

NC: 2025:KHC:20181

HC-KAR

VENKATANNA v. NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB reported in AIR

Online 2023 SC 459 to buttress his submission that if the

plaint averments would not disclose cause of action or it is

hopelessly barred by limitation, the Court should entertain the

application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and reject

the plaint.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel Sri G A Srikante Gowda

appearing for the 4th respondent caveator/plaintiff would

submit that the suit is now 6 years old. The stage is at the

cross examination of P.W.1, at this stage, after completely

participating in the suit, the application is preferred under

Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the score that the plaint

averments would not divulge any cause of action. He would

submit that it is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend

that the plaint should be rejected for want of cause of action.

Even on the merit of the matter the counsel would contend that

cause of action is clearly indicated in the plaint itself, as for the

first time disturbance with the peaceful possession is made by

the defendant in the year 2018 and the suit is instituted in the

NC: 2025:KHC:20181

HC-KAR

year 2019. Therefore there is neither want of cause of action

nor the suit is barred by limitation.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective

parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. A suit

in OS 873 of 2019, re-numbered as OS 1175 of 2022 is

instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking relief of

declaration and permanent injunction. The reason for cause of

action and the reason for filing the suit is what is narrated in

paragraph 11 to 13 of the plant, it reads as follows:

".... .... ....

11. The Plaintiffs submit that, Defendant has no manner of right title and interest over the land in question and he is not at all in possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of sale made in favour of the Plaintiffs' father late Kempanna. The Plaintiffs being legal heirs of late Kempanna, inherited right title and interest over the suit schedule land and are the absolute owners. The Defendant, by playing fraud, misrepresentation and in collusion with the revenue officials has illegally obtained an order dated 06.09.2018 in his favour for transfer of khatha and entries in his name and on the basis of fraudulent entries, he is making all illegal attempts to interfere, to damage and to dispossess the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the land in question. The Defendant is also taking undue advantage of the

NC: 2025:KHC:20181

HC-KAR

protection granted under the Special enactment are threatening the Plaintiffs that he will file cases against them alleging atrocities. Hence, under the above circumstances, being the lawful owners of the suit schedule land, the Plaintiffs have no other alternative and efficacious remedy, except to approach this Hon'ble Court for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, because it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to protect their lawful right and possession over the suit schedule land from continuous illegal attempts of the Defendant. Hence the Plaintiffs are filing the above Suit for the following reliefs.

12. The cause of action for the Suit arose on 06.08.2018 when the Defendant made illegal attempts for the first time to interfere and thereafter in the Month of November 2018 when he made illegal attempts once again to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiffs on the basis of an order passed by the Tahasildar, Hosakote Taluk dated 06.09.2018 and recently on 06.06.2019 when the Defendant made illegal attempts to remove the eucalyptus plants existing in the land in question and the cause of action is still subsisting and it is Continuous.

13. The suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdictional limits of this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to decide all the questions in controversy involved in the case. The Plaintiffs have valued the Suit as per the separate valuation slip annexed to the Plaint and have paid sufficient court fee on the Plaint."

It is trite law that for an application to be considered under

Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC what is required to be considered

by the concerned Court is the plaint averments, not the defence

setup or the contents of the application filed under Order 7 Rule

11 of the CPC. If the plant averments would disclose cause of

action, it would suffice for entertainment of the suit.

NC: 2025:KHC:20181

HC-KAR

8. A perusal at the paragraphs quoted hereinabove,

clearly indicates the cause of action in the year 2018 for

instituting a suit, as the suit is for declaration and permanent

injunction. The relief that is sought is on the basis of the