Karnataka High Court
Smt Laxmibai W/O Hanamantgouda Patil vs Sri Subhas S/O Ramappa Urf Ramanagouda ... on 14 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848
CRP No. 100088 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100088 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O HANAMANTGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT,
PIN-587 313.
2. SRI. HANAMANTGOUDA
S/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL,
CHANDRASHEKAR
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI COURT OF
PIN-587 313.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.10.18
07:56:56 +0100
3. SRI. PRAJWAL S/O HANAMANTGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT,
PIN-587 313.
4. SRI. BALAJI SAND MANUFACTURING UNIT
SURVEY NO.38, MAREGUDDI VILLAGE,
R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PRAJAWAL PATIL, AGE. 26 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848
CRP No. 100088 of 2025
HC-KAR
OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. ANAND NAGAR,
MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 313.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBHAS
S/O RAMAPPA URF RAMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. SAND MININ CONTRACTOR,
R/O. SHIDDARAMESHWAR NAGAR, TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 313.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SUNDARA SOUHARD PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,
BAGALKOT, R/O. ATHANI KALYAN MANTAP,
ENGINEERING COLLEGE CIRCLE, VIDYAGIRI,
BAGALKOT, PIN-581 701.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRANAV U. BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 06.08.2025 ON IA NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULES
11(A) AND (D) R/W 151 OF CPC, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI IN O.S. NO.228/2024
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT BY REJECTING THE PLAINT
IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848
CRP No. 100088 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated
06.08.2025 on an application for rejection of plaint,
which was filed at I.A.No.5 invoking Order VII Rule
11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC').
2. The trial Court has rejected the application on the
premise that Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, is not
applicable to the averments made in the plaint.
3. This Court has considered the impugned order and
also considered the averments in the plaint.
4. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff is
having 50% share in the suit schedule property.
The plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the
mortgage of the suit property to defendant No.5 by
defendant Nos.1 to 3, is illegal and has also sought
permanent injunction from removing the plants and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848
HC-KAR
machineries in the suit property. A few other reliefs
are also sought, which may not be necessary for
the purpose of adjudicating the present petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that the plaintiff has not placed any
material to establish his contention that he has any
right over the property. It is his submission that the
relief sought is negative relief and as such, the suit
is not maintainable. It is his further submission that
the plaintiff and defendants are not relatives, or the
partners and as such, the suit is not maintainable.
It is also his further submission that plaintiff is the
employee of defendant No.4.
6. In support of his contention, he would refer to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (i) Dahiben
vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA)(D) The
LRS & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019, (ii)
Ramisetty Venkatanna and Anr Vs Nasyam Jamal
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848
HC-KAR
Saheb and Ors reported in 2023 AIAR (Civil) 543,
(iii) State of Haryana and Ors Vs Hira Singh
reported in 2023 AIAR (Civil) 549, (iv) Raghwendra
Sharan Singh Vs Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by
Legal Representatives reported in (2020) 16
Supreme Court Cases 601, (v) Godrej Properties
Limited Vs H.K.Susheelamma and others in Civil
Revision Petition No.374/2021.
7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at
the bar and perused the records.
8. This Court has also perused the judgment cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. Said
judgments are rendered in the factual facts
obtained in the aforementioned cases, which are
entirely different from the facts narrated in the
plaint. Hence, the ratio in the aforementioned
judgments, are not applicable to the present case
on hand.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848
HC-KAR
9. The scope of the Court under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC, is very much well settled. The Court has to go
by the averments made in the plaint. Further, the
averments made in the plaint, if it is noticed that
the suit is time barred, or no cause of action has
arisen, then the Court has to reject the plaint. After
going through the contents of the plaint, it is
noticed that, no such case is made out to attract
Order VII to 11 of CPC.
10. The contention that the relief sought is a negative
relief, cannot be accepted and merely because
there is no blood relationship between plaintiff and
defendant or assuming that plaintiff is the employee
of defendant No.4, it cannot be said that the suit
claiming declaration that the plaintiff has 50%
share in the suit schedule property, cannot be
dismissed by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Whether the plaintiff has really invested the amount
as claimed in the plaint or not, is a matter of trial.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13848
HC-KAR
The trial Court is justified in rejecting the
application.
11. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error to
interfere in exercise of power Under Section 115 of
the CPC.
12. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT:BCK
