Dismissed¶¶40

Shrikant S/O. Ramu Nimbalkar, v. Sanjeev S/O. Ganapati Nimbalkar

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2025CRP/100005/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (NC: 2025:KHC-D:1736); CRP No. 100005 of 2025; Justice E.S. Indiresh; decided 29.01.2025. Keywords: Sec.115 CPC revision; Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint; IA No.III; OS No.120/2023 (declaration suit, Chikkodi); prior litigation OS No.256/2006, RSA No.5160/2011, SLP No.8603 of 2022; parties must lead evidence despite prior decree claims; plaint rejection refused; trial necessary for proof of title; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the civil revision petition was dismissed and the impugned order of the Trial Court was left undisturbed. ¶¶40

Shrikant S/O. Ramu Nimbalkar, Vs Sanjeev S/O. Ganapati Nimbalkar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the civil revision petition was dismissed and the impugned order of the Trial Court was left undisturbed.

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 19.12.2024 dismissing IA No.III in OS No.120/2023 calls for interference by this Court in the civil revision petition under Sec.115 of CPC, 1908. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

The finding recorded by the Court below is just and proper and the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court rightly rejected the application (IA No.III under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) because the parties have to adduce evidence to prove their title in respect of the subject matter of the land.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

Even assuming, as contended by the petitioner, that the rights of the parties were crystallised in OS No.256/2006 (confirmed in RSA No.5160/2011 and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.8603 of 2022), it is the duty of the parties to adduce evidence and produce the relevant documents during the trial for final adjudication.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Sec.115 of CPC, 1908 against the order dated 19.12.2024 of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkodi dismissing IA No.III filed by defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in OS No.120/2023 (suit for declaration). Defendant No.1 contended that the lis stood resolved in OS No.256/2006, confirmed by the High Court in RSA No.5160/2011 and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.8603 of 2022. Held: the Trial Court rightly rejected the application, as the parties have to adduce evidence to prove their title in respect of the subject matter of the land, and it is their duty to adduce evidence and produce relevant documents at trial for final adjudication. Finding of the Court below held just and proper; impugned order not interfered with; revision petition dismissed (E.S.Indiresh, J.; Dharwad Bench, 29.01.2025).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1736 CRP No. 100005 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100005 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRIKANT S/O. RAMU NIMBALKAR, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAINAKAWADI HAMLET OF SADALAGA, TALUK. CHIKKODI-591201, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA MANJANNA E E Date: 2025.02.04 11:03:17 +0530

¶15

SANJEEV S/O. GANAPATI NIMBALKAR AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAINAKAWADI HAMLET OF SADALAGA, TALUK. CHIKKODI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591201.

¶16

RAJU @ RAJEEV S/O. GANAPATI NIMBALKAR AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAINAKAWADI HAMLET OF SADALAGA, TALUK. CHIKKODI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591201.

¶17

BABURAO S/O. RAMU NIMBALKAR AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. VISHRAM BAG SANGLI, TALUK. SANGLI, DISTRICT. SANGLI, STATE. MAHARASTRA-416406.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1736 CRP No. 100005 of 2025

¶20

RAJENDRA S/O. MAHADEV NIMABALKAR AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ABDULAT, TALUK. SHIROL, DIST. KOLHAPUR-416002.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH BIRANAGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶23

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO. 120/2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKODI VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY ALLOWING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

This Revision Petition is filed by the defendant No.1

¶30

challenging the order dated 19.12.2024 in OS No.120/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkodi (for short,

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1736 CRP No. 100005 of 2025

¶32

hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), dismissing IA No.III filed by the defendant No.1.

¶33

Having taken note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as the plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of declaration and defendant has entered appearance and took up a contention that the lis between the parties has been set resolved in OS No.256/2006. Hence, the defendant No.1 has filed application in IA No.III under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

¶34

The Trial Court after considering the material on record rightly rejected the application as the parties have to adduce evidence to prove their title in respect of the subject matter of the land.

¶35

Taking into consideration the fact that, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the rights of the parties is crystallized in OS No.256/2006 and same has been confirmed by this Court in RSA No.5160/2011 and further same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.8603 of 2022 however, it is the duty of the

¶36