Dismissed¶72

Sri G Nanjappa v. Smt. Bhagyamma

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2025CRP/105/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (V Srishananda, 18-11-2025), CRP 105/2023 under S.115 CPC: Order II Rule 2 CPC bar (re earlier suit O.S.No.1275/2007) cannot be adjudicated at the threshold on a rejection-of-plaint application; frame issue, try with evidence at final hearing; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The question whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC cannot be a subject matter of discussion at the threshold, i.e., it cannot be resolved on the rejection-of-plaint application. ¶60

Sri G Nanjappa Vs Smt. Bhagyamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit in O.S.No.1106 of 2020 is hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC having regard to the earlier suit O.S.No.1275 of 2007, and whether that objection can be entertained at the threshold through an application for rejection of the plaint.

¶60

Court's answer

On perusal of the material on record, this Court found that the plaintiffs had not suppressed the filing of the earlier suit O.S.No.1275 of 2007; the plaint detailed the earlier suit and pleaded the cause of action.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The question whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC cannot be a subject matter of discussion at the threshold, i.e., it cannot be resolved on the rejection-of-plaint application.

¶60

Key takeaways

An issue on the Order II Rule 2 objection would necessarily be framed by the trial Court in the light of the rival pleadings; if no such issue is framed, the revision petitioner can resort to Order XIV of CPC.ratio¶61
If the Order II Rule 2 issue is already framed or going to be framed, the parties are bound to lead necessary evidence on the said issue, and the issue can be trashed out only at the final hearing of the suit.ratio¶62
Viewed from any angle, the Court found no good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration, and accordingly dismissed it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC by the defendant in O.S.No.1106 of 2020 (suit by respondents for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over Sy.No.62/1, Adhuru Village) against dismissal of his I.A.No.2 under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the earlier suit O.S.No.1275 of 2007 had been dismissed with a specific finding. Held: the question whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC cannot be discussed at the threshold; an issue would necessarily be framed by the trial Court on the rival pleadings (failing which the defendant may resort to Order XIV CPC), and if framed, the parties must lead evidence on it, the issue being decidable only at the final hearing of the suit. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had not suppressed the filing of O.S.No.1275 of 2007 and had detailed it in the plaint. Revision petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 105 OF 2023 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI G NANJAPPA URUF POLICE NANJAPPA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADURU VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560049.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MITHUN G A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAANKANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT ADUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049.

¶15

SUNIL KUMAR A S/O LATE CHIKKAANKANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT ADUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHYAM PRASHANTHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.08.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.1106/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE REJECTING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 2 RULE 2 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Shri.Mithun.G.A., learned counsel appearing

¶25

for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.

¶26

Defendant in O.S.No.1106 of 2020 on the file of

¶27

II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru Rural District is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application vide Item No.2 filed under Order II Rule

¶28

2 of CPC.

¶29

Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost

¶30

necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.1106 of 2020 by

¶35

the respondents seeking following reliefs in respect of following immovable properties:

¶36

a) Declare that plaintiffs are the absolute owners and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶37

b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant or his agents or anybody claiming under him from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶38

c) For costs and such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶39

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶40

All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.62/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas, situated at Adhuru Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk (earlier Bangalore South Taluk) and bounded on the:

¶41

East by : Land belongs to Thammaiah; West by : Road; North by : Paramount Public School and land belongs to Nanjundappa; South by: Land belongs to S.Munegowda

¶42

4. Defendant entered appearance and filed written

¶43

statement stating that there is a specific finding recorded

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

in the previous suit in O.S.No.1275 of 2007 and therefore,

¶47

the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC.

¶48

The said application was opposed by the

¶49

plaintiffs and by impugned order, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application.

¶50

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is

¶51

before this Court.

¶52

Sri.G.A.Mithun, learned counsel appearing for

¶53

the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that when the earlier suit in O.S.No.1275 of 2007 came to be dismissed and a specific finding has been recorded, which has become final by plaintiffs' not appealing against the said judgment, the second suit for the relief of declaration is clearly barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶54

Counsel for respondent remained absent.

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47706 CRP No. 105 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Therefore, this Court perused the material on

¶58

record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, plaintiffs have not suppressed the filing of O.S.No.1275 of 2007. Infact in paragraph No.7 of the

¶59

plaint, plaintiffs have detailed out as to what happened in the said suit and how the present suit is maintainable by the plaintiffs, specifically mentioning in paragraph No.12 of the plaint about the cause of action which arose on 14.10.2020 as per the plaintiffs.

¶60

Whether at all, the suit is hit by the Order II Rule 2 of CPC cannot be a subject matter of the discussion at the threshold.

¶61

Necessarily an issue would be framed by the Court below, in the light of the rival pleadings and if no such issue is framed by the Court, the revision petitioner can resort to Order XIV of CPC.

¶62