Karnataka High Court
Sri. Siddappa Son Of Basavanneppa ... vs Sri Kuber Alias Kubendra S/O ... on 26 September, 2025
-1-
CRP No. 100087/2025
RESERVED ON : 17.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100087 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SIDDAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA PIRAGOJI
AGE. 66 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BASAV NAGAR,
7TH CROSS, MURGOD ROAD,
BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL
DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.
2. SMT. KASTURI W/O. SIDDAPPA PIRAGOJI
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDENT OF BASAV NAGAR,
7TH CROSS, MURGOD ROAD,
BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.09.26 (BY SRI AMRUT V. JOIS, ADVOCATE.)
14:38:11 +0530
AND:
SRI KUBER @ KUBENDRA
S/O. BASAVANNEPPA PIRAGOJI
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF BASAV NAGAR,
7TH CROSS, MURGOD ROAD,
BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
CRP No. 100087/2025
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.197 OF 2022
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2024 ON I.A.NO.8 AND
REJECT THE PLAINT OF RESPONDENT IN THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.09.2025 AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
2. The revision petitioner has preferred this
revision petition against the order dated 15.07.2024,
passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, in
O.S.No.197/2022, on I.A.No.8 filed under Order VII Rule
11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC.
3. For the purpose of convenience and easy
reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their
status before the trial Court.
4. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are
that the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.197/2022
-3-
CRP No. 100087/2025
before the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, seeking the relief
of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
properties. On appearance of the defendants, the
defendants have filed I.A.No.8 under Order VII Rule 11(a)
read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint. This
application was supported with the affidavit of
Sri Siddappa S/o.Basavanneppa Piragoji, in which it is
stated that in paragraph No.10 of the plaint, the cause of
action of the suit is stated that on 21.07.2022 when
defendant No.1 rejected the request for partition and also
blackmailing for relinquishment of rights for 03 plots and
the same is continuous one. It is submitted that the cause
of action is a bundle of facts, which if traversed, it would
be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support
his right to a judgment of the Court. In paragraph No.8 of
the plaint it is stated that the present suit properties were
dealt with in O.S.No.18/2012. It is also admitted that the
said suit is decided. The plaint is nothing but deemed
incorporation in the suit. The plaintiff has averred that the
suit O.S.No.18/2012 has been disposed of by holding that
-4-
CRP No. 100087/2025
the sister of the plaintiff by name Gowravva is entitled for
1/27th share in the suit schedule A properties and he and
the plaintiffs are entitled for 10/27th share each. The
plaintiff has preferred Regular First Appeal
No.100159/2017 against the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.18/2012 before this Court and the same is
pending for disposal. The suit properties in the suit are the
subject matter of appeal pending disposal before this
Court. By suppressing the same, the plaintiff has filed this
suit by creating false cause of action with the false set of
facts. The plaintiff in O.S.No.18/2012 by name Gowravva
has also filed RFA Crob No.100007/2018 in RFA
No.100159/2017, wherein Smt.Gowravva had challenged
the decree passed in O.S.No.18/2012. This being the fact,
the subject matter of the suit is sub-judiced (before this
Court). The parties to the appeal are bound by the
judgment of this Court including the parties in the suit. On
all these grounds he sought for rejection of the plaint. The
plaintiff has filed objections to this application contending
that the pleadings of the plaintiff are very well revealed
-5-
CRP No. 100087/2025
the cause of action. The cause of action arose to the suit
and the same is continued one. This I.A. is based on the
bare and imaginary count. Defendant No.1 instigated his
sister for filing the suit in O.S.No.18/2012. In order to get
excess share through his sister, he has also married the
daughter of his own another sister and the sisters are
co-operating for his illegal activities. After trial, the
present suit properties are decided as personal properties
of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Meanwhile, defendant
No.1 got created unregistered and bogus document
coloured as the plaintiff given up his rights in his favour in
respect of 03 plots since 2010. Hence the plaintiff has filed
suit. The defendants hand in glove with each other have
falsely filed present I.A. in order to prolong the matter and
avoid the legal share of the plaintiff. Hence sought for
dismissal of the I.A.
5. Having heard the arguments, the trial Court has
dismissed the I.A. Being agreed by this order passed on
I.A.No.8, the Revision Petitioner has preferred this
petition.
-6-
CRP No. 100087/2025
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the materials
on record in accordance with law and on facts. The cause
of action shown by the plaintiff does not constitute the
cause of action which is required in law and sought for
allowing this petition.
7. On a careful examination of the impugned order
passed by the trial Court, the trial Court has rejected this
application by assigning reasons in paragraph Nos.7 to 13,
in which the trial Court has rightly observed that, at the
stage of considering an application seeking rejection of the
plaint, the Court is bound to rely upon the plaint
averments and the defence available to the other side
cannot be considered. A perusal of the plaint paragraph
No.10, it is clearly stated as to the cause of action to the
suit arose on 21.07.2022. The grounds urged in the
affidavit, which is supported to the I.A., filed under Order
VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, may be considered only after full-
fledged trial. The trial Court has properly observed the
same and rejected the application. I do not find any error
-7-
CRP No. 100087/2025
or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is dismissed.
ii) In view of dismissal of the petition itself, the
pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed
of as they do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU
