[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Ajeet Ishwr Aparaj vs Smt Shobha W/O Arun Ganiger on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4984
CRP No. 100145 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100145 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI AJEET ISHWAR APARAJ,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O AINAPUR-591303, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SMT.BHARATI W/O AJEET APARAJ,
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O AINAPUR-591303,
TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SRI PRAVEEN ISHWAR APARAJ,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O AINAPUR-591303, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HR DESHPANDE AND SMT.USHA H. DESHPANDE,
MISS.LALAMMABANU YARAGATTI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT.SHOBHA W/O ARUN GANIGER,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
R/O AINAPUR-591303, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.07 05:38:06
+0100
2. SRI ARUN SIDDAPPA GANIGER,
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRI. AND SOCIAL SERVICE,
R/O AINAPUR-591303, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SRI SANJEEV KALLAPPA NAIK,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O METGUD-587313, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4984
CRP No. 100145 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC 1908,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.10.2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ATHANI,
IN IA NO.II IN O.S.NO.171/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA
NO.II FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.171/2024 AS PRAYED
THEREIN AND TO REJECT THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.171/2024 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY WITH COSTS
THROUGHOUT & ETC.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 24.10.2025 passed by Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Athani at Athani in O.S. no.171/2024 on
I.A.no.II filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, this revision is
filed.
2. Sri HR Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that petitioners were defendants no.1 to 3 in suit filed
by respondents no.1 and 2 herein for recovery of money. It was
submitted plaint mentioned that it was filed under Order XXXVII
of CPC as a summary suit, but without indicating compliance with
Rule 1(2) of Order XXXVII of CPC. It was further submitted, in
absence of a notification conferring jurisdiction on Civil Court to
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4984
HC-KAR
entertain summary suit, entertainment of suit by Senior Civil
Judge, Athani at Athani would be untenable. Therefore, after
entering appearance and filing of written statement, defendants
had filed I.A.no.II for rejection of plaint. Though, above
contentions were highlighted, under impugned order trial Court
rejected application on untenable reasons, that there was wrong
quoting of provision by plaintiffs, when they had opportunity of
rectification of mistake. Thus, there was failure on part of trial
Court to have exercised jurisdiction vested in it and impugned
order suffered from material irregularity, calling for interference.
3. On other hand, Sri Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel for
respondents no.1 and 2/plaintiffs opposed revision and
submitted that though provision of Order XXXVII of CPC was
mentioned at heading below cause title of plaint. On an entire
and meaningful reading of plaint, it was evident that suit was not
filed invoking summary procedure under Order XXXVII of CPC.
Besides, plaint was registered as a regular suit and even
summons issued were in Form no.3 and not in Form no.4,
specified for summary suit. Under above circumstances, trial
Court had rightly observed mentioning of Order XXXVII of CPC in
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4984
HC-KAR
plaint was a bona fide mistake and therefore, trial Court rightly
rejected application. On said grounds sought for rejection of
revision.
4. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and
material made available.
5. At outset, it is seen that this revision by defendants is
challenging order passed by trial Court on I.A.no.II rejecting
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Admittedly,
there is mention of Order XXXVII of CPC in preamble to suit. As
rightly submitted, in order to maintain a suit under Order XXXVII
of CPC, plaintiffs would require to establish that pliant confirms
to provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 1(2) of CPC, which mandates
a specific averment that suit is filed invoking said provision.
Perusal of plaint in instant case does not reveal such averment.
Thus, there is only mentioning of provision in preamble. Mere
wrong mentioning of provision would not establish that suit is
filed under Order XXXVII of CPC, attracting requirements
thereof. Trial Court has rightly appreciated facts and
circumstances and on said basis passed order rejecting
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4984
HC-KAR
application. I do not see any grounds justifying invocation of
revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CKK CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54
