Dismissed¶38

Rajshekhar v. Mahananda

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2025CRP/200010/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order VII Rule 11 CPC; rejection of plaint; cause of action; plaint averments versus written statement averments; disputed question of fact; partition of residential premises; wife's contribution Rs.4 lakh; defendant's contribution Rs.5 lakh; Section 115 CPC civil revision petition dismissed; O.S.No.03/2024; I.A.No.I dated 12.09.2024; II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Kalaburagi; Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde; Kalaburagi Bench; contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

In deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court has to look into the averments made in the plaint and not the averments made in the written statement. ¶35

Rajshekhar Vs Mahananda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1546 CRP No. 200010 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.200010 OF 2025 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RAJSHEKHAR S/O BHIMARAYA MARADI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND PRESIDENT OF BASAVAJYOTHI EDUCATION TRUST, R/O H.NO.9-587/94/76, SHAIK ROZA, RAMTIRTH NAGAR, ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 104.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR MARADI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MAHANANDA (DIVORCED ON 12-09-2019), IN MC NO.68/2018 OF FAMILY COURT KALABURGI, EX-W/O RAJSHEKHAR MARADI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO.35, KHB COLONY, OLD JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(RESPONDENT - SERVED)

¶17

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A NO.I DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI IN O.S NO.03/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1546 CRP No. 200010 of 2025

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶23

This petition is filed challenging the order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant in O.S.No.3/2024 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Kalaburagi prayed to reject the plaint on the premise that there is no cause of action in a suit filed by his wife seeking partition of suit schedule property which is a residential premises.

¶24

The plaintiff in her plaint has stated that the suit property is jointly purchased by the plaintiff and defendant who is her husband and plaintiff has contributed Rs.4 lakhs and still the plaintiff is contributing her share towards repayment of the hand loan and Rs.5 lakh is arranged by the defendant to purchase the property.

¶25

The defendant moved the application on the premises that the entire contribution is paid by the defendant and there is no contribution by the plaintiff. The trial court noticing the contents of the plaint as well as the application

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1546 CRP No. 200010 of 2025

¶27

filed to reject the plaint, has concluded that the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage.

¶28

The trial court has noticed the law relating to application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, and after going through the averments of the plaint has considered that the plaint averments would disclose the cause of action.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would contend that since the entire consideration amount is paid by the defendant, the plaintiff has no locus to file a suit for partition and the application for rejection of the plaint could not have been rejected.

¶30

This court has considered the contentions raised on

¶31

behalf of the petitioner.

¶32

The plaintiff’s claim is that she has contributed Rs.4 lakh to purchase the suit property and the defendant contributed Rs.5 lakh. Defendant claims he contributed entire amount. It is a disputed question of fact which is to be adjudicated at the time of trial. In an application under Order

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1546 CRP No. 200010 of 2025

¶34

VII Rule 11 of CPC, the contention raised by the defendant cannot be adjudicated.

¶35

The well settled principles of law is that the court has to look into the averments made in the plaint while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and not the averments made in the written statement. Therefore, this court is of the view that the application filed by the defendant on the premise that there is no cause of action is totally misconceived.

¶36