[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Y Nagi Reddy S/O Late Late S Bheema ... vs Y Narayan Reddy S/O Late S Bheema Reddy on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3738
CRP No. 100036 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100036 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI Y NAGI REDDY
S/O LATE S BHEEMA REDDY,
AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SANGANAKAL VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Y NARAYAN REDDY
S/O LATE S BHEEMA REDDY
AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BEECHINAGAR, 1ST CROSS, KOPPAL ROAD,
BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583103.
2. THE SECRETARY,
GRAM PANCHAYAT SANGANAKAL VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583103.
CHANDRASHEKAR
3. YN RAGHURAMA REDDY
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
S/O Y NAGI REDDY,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA,
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.11 09:47:01
+0000
SANGANAKALLU VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583103.
4. YN HARISH REDDY
S/O Y NAGI REDDY,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA,
SANGANAKALLU VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR K. BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI V SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3738
CRP No. 100036 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 3-2-2026
MADE IN OS NO.670/2010 (ORDER ON I.A.NO.XXIX) PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F, ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1908 AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10
R/W SECTION 151 CPC AND DIRECT RETURN OF THE PLAINT IN OS
NO.670/2010 FOR PRESENTATION BEFORE THE COURT HAVING
COMPETENT PECUNIARY JURISDICTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND ETC.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 03.02.2026 passed by I Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari (for short, 'trial Court') in O.S.
no.670/2010 on I.A. no.XXIX, this revision petition is filed by
defendant no.1.
2. Sri Gurudev I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that revision petition was filed by defendant
no.1 in O.S. no.670 of 2010 filed by respondent no.1 herein for
declaration and possession etc. In said suit, petitioner herein had
filed written statement and contested suit. It was submitted, one
of objections raised by petitioner herein in his written statement
was about Court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. In cross-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3738
HC-KAR
examination of PW-1 produced as Annexure-C dated 30.08.2025,
it was elicited that in year 2010 value of one square foot of plot
was Rs.600/-, to contend that value of suit properties namely 3
sites, totally measuring 5,300 square feet would be ₹31,80,000/-
, which would place subject matter of suit beyond pecuniary
jurisdiction of Court in question. Therefore, petitioner herein had
filed I.A. no.XXIX under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for return of
plaint. Trial Court had rejected said application on ground that an
issue to said effect was framed and burden cast on defendant
no.1 to establish it and same would require consideration at time
of final disposal. It was submitted, observation by learned trial
Judge that it was a stray admission and was not backed by any
document to come to a conclusion on merits and ignoring
admission etc. was unsustainable. Therefore, impugned order
called for interference. It was submitted, trial Court thereby
failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and also committed
material irregularity. On said ground sought for allowing revision
petition.
3. On other hand, Sri Vijaykumar K. Balagerimath, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.1 supports impugned order.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3738
HC-KAR
4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned
order as well as material on record.
5. From above and as defendant no.1 is in revision
against an order rejecting I.A. no.XXIX filed under Order VII Rule
10 of CPC, point that would arise for consideration is,
"Whether impugned order suffers from material
irregularity or failure to exercise jurisdiction vested,
calling for interference?"
6. At outset, it is seen that this revision petition is filed
under Section 115 of CPC. Though, grounds urged prima facie
would fall within scope of revision under Section 115(1) of CPC.,
proviso to same prohibits interference in case order under
revision, if reversed and passed in favour of petitioner would
result in conclusion of suit or other proceedings. But in present
case, very prayer of petitioner herein in I.A.no.XXIX is for return
of plaint and not for its rejection. Requirement of representation
would not result in conclusion of proceedings. Though, learned
counsel for petitioner submits that proceedings insofar as Court
in question would come to an end, no authorities cited in support
of said submission. Moreover, Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC provides
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3738
HC-KAR
for appellate remedy against order passed under Order VII Rule
10 of CPC. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. However, it
would be open for petitioner to urge contentions urged in
application at time of final disposal of suit as a specific issue is
framed.
In view of dismissal of petition, pending applications are
dismissed as un-necessary.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CKK, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4
