[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajeshwari W/O Rachappa Kullolli vs Sri Channappa S/O Honnappa Hukkeri on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5062
CRP No. 100028 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100028 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RAJESHWARI W/O RACHAPPA KULLOLLI,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MAHALINGPUR, TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 312.
2. SRI RAHUL S/O RACHAPPA KULLOLLI,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAHALINGPUR, TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 312.
3. SRI CHANNAGIRI S/O RACHAPPA KULLOLLI
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAHALINGPUR, TALUK MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JS SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI CHANNAPPA S/O HONNAPPA HUKKERI
CHANDRASHEKAR
AGE. 88 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
R/O MAHALINGPUR, TQ. MUDHOL,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 312.
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.08 10:24:43
+0100
2. SMT.SHANTAVVA W/O SHIKREPPA KULLOLLI
AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O KULLOLLI ONI, MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.
3. SRI MAHALINGAPPA S/O SHIKREPPA KULLOLLI,
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KULLOLLI ONI, MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587 312.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5062
CRP No. 100028 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. SRI PARAPPA S/O SHIKREPPA KULLOLLI,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KULLOLLI ONI, MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587 312.
5. SHRI RAJESHEKAR S/O SHIKREPPA KULLOLLI
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KULLOLLI ONI MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.
6. SMT.MAHADEVI W/O BABU BIDARI
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC, HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O BANHATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587311.
7. SMT.SHEKUNTALA W/O SHANKAR GORAGUDDI
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O KULLOLLI ONI MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587 312.
8. NIRMALA W/O SHRISHAIK KARAKI
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HIREKOPPA TALUK RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591139.
9. MAHANANDA W/O BASAPPA KULLOLLI
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O KULLOLLI ONI, MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.
10. SHASHIKALA W/O MAHANTESH GAJENDRAGADA
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O ILKAL, TALUK HUNUGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587125.
11. SMT.SHOBHA W/O LAXMAN VANAKI
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R./O ILKAL, TALUK HUNUGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587125.
12. SMT.SUVARNA W/O SHIVANAND SASALATTI
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MUDALAGI, TALUK GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591312.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5062
CRP No. 100028 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. SMT.PREMA W/O VISHWANATH KANKANMELI
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MULLOLI GALLI MAHALINGAPUR,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.
14. SMT.RAJESHWARI W/O VIDYADHAR JIGAGINNI
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O BANAHATTI, TALUK JAMAKANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587311.
15. SMT.BHARATI W/O CHINNAPPA KULLOLLI
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MAHALINGPUR, TALUK MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.
16. SRI SACHIN S/O CHINNAPPA KULLOLLI,
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O MAHALINGAPUR, TALUK MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.
17. SRI SANJAY S/O CHINNAPPA KULLOLLI
AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O MAHALINGPUR, TALUK MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.
18. SRI SHANKAREPPA S/O HONNAPPA HUKKERI
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAHALINGAPUR, TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SB HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 & R4-DECEASED; NOTICE TO R5,R6,R8,R10-SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3, R7, R9, R11 & R12 TO R18-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
CALLING FOR THE RECORDS THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED
ON I.A.6 IN O.S.NO.67/2022 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BANAHATTI, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE
BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION WITH COST THROUGHOUT IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5062
CRP No. 100028 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 28.06.2024 passed by Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Banahatti in OS.no.67/2022 on IA no.VI filed under
Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
('CPC', for short), this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri J.S. Shetty, learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that revision was by defendants no.14, 18 and 19 in
suit filed by respondent no.1 - plaintiff for declaring plaintiff as
owner in possession and having right of way measuring 10
guntas as described in plaint schedule 'A' and 'B' respectively
and for consequential injunction restraining defendants from
obstructing plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property.
3. It was submitted, after appearance and filing of
written statement along with counter claim, IA no.VI was filed
under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of plaint,
specifically urging that plaint was filed without disclosing cause
of action and was barred by principles of res judicata. In affidavit
filed in support of application, it was narrated that as early as in
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5062
HC-KAR
year 1985, OS no.203/1985 was filed for possession of
encroached portion of 1 Acre 37 guntas. In said suit, plaint was
ordered to be re-presented before Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)
Jamkhandi and re-numbered as OS no.71/1994. Thereafter suit
was decreed on 12.11.2004, confirmed in RFA no.34/2005 and
also by Hon'ble Supreme Court with dismissal of Special Leave
Petition. Thereafter, Ex.P.no.254/2005 was filed for execution of
decree, wherein on 14.09.2007 possession warrant came to be
issued and Bailiff handed over possession of encroached portion
in favour of decree holders. Thereafter on one or other pretext,
plaintiff and his brother attempted to re-agitate issues on one or
other application, revision, appeal etc. which concluded against
them. On said assertions, it is sought to be contended that there
was no subsisting cause of action for fling suit as stated herein
and moreso when rights of parties stood determined. On said
assertions, it was contended, since claims of parties were already
stood decided/concluded in earlier proceedings, present suit was
liable to be dismissed on ground of res judicata. Though said
grounds were urged under impugned order, trial Court rejected
application on improper reasoning that while considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only plaint
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5062
HC-KAR
averments can be looked into and not defence/contentions taken
by defendant in written statement, that plaintiff had disclosed
cause of action for filing suit and question of bar of res judicata
could not be decided at this stage, as it was a mixed question of
law and fact. It was submitted, by virtue of impugned order, trial
Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and nipped
frivolous suit. On said grounds sought for allowing revision
petition.
4. On other hand, Sri SB Hebballi, learned counsel for
respondent no.1/plaintiff opposed revision. It was submitted,
plaint para no.10 disclosed clear cause of action. In plaint, it was
stated that defendants no.1 to 19 were trying to take possession
of excess area and as rights of defendants no.1 to 19 over suit
property herein was not declared, plaintiff was seeking
declaration in present suit. Therefore, plaint was filed with a
cause of action and legality or validity of cause of action could
not be decided while considering an application under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5062
HC-KAR
6. As noted above, revision petition is by defendants
no.14, 18 and 19 challenging order passed rejecting their
application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. Insofar as
application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of
CPC. Main contention urged is that cause of action shown cannot
be appropriate and there is failure on part of plaintiff to disclose
true cause of action. It was submitted that taking possession in
pursuance to a decree cannot give rise to a cause of action for
filing a suit and therefore, suit was filed without proper cause of
action.
7. A perusal of plaint paras no.8 and 10 indicates
specific case of plaintiff herein is that defendants no.1 to 19 were
in hurry to take possession of an area in excess of their
ownership as per decree in OS no.71/1994 and to cause
obstruction to plaintiff's right of way. Since at stage of
consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC,
plaint averments have to be presumed to be correct. If decree
holders in OS no.71/1994 are seeking to take possession of
excess area, same could be a cause of action give rise to a cause
of action for filing suit as plaintiff is seeking for decree of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5062
HC-KAR
declaration of his right. Therefore, rejection of application insofar
as Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC by trial Court appears to be
justified.
8. Insofar as contention that suit barred by res judicata
requires to be rejected outright as Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat
and Ors., reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99 has held that bar of res
judicata cannot be determined at stage of consideration of Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, both reasons assigned by trial
Court for rejecting applications appear to be in accordance with
law. No grounds to interfere.
9. There is another contention that there is clever
drafting or failure to disclose proper cause of action by relying
upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr., reported in (1977)
4 SCC 467. On a complete and meaningful reading of plaint,
grievance of plaintiff appears to be that defendants are seeking
to take possession of excess area than decree passed in OS
no.71/2014. It is settled position that while considering
application while lack of cause of action could be a ground,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5062
HC-KAR
validity or legality of cause of action cannot be a ground for
rejection of plaint. Hence even said contention is without proper
basis.
10. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Revision petition is dismissed.
ii. In case, petitioners allege that instant suit is
an abuse of process, they would be at liberty
to urge said ground in appropriate manner
before trial Court and also seek for expedite
disposal of trial.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD/CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54
