Dismissed¶61

Naveen Kumar v. Amarnatha Y K

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025CRP/271/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant's Section 115 CPC civil revision petition against rejection of his Order VII Rule 11 CPC application in a bare-injunction suit (O.S.No.826/2021, XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) founded on an agreement to sell with possession retained by plaintiff; plaint-only scrutiny at threshold; maintainability of bare injunction upheld notwithstanding defendant's part-performance claim; possession question left to trial; dismissal of suit foreshadowed if delivery of possession proved; Section 35A exemplary costs flagged; Naveen Kumar v. Amarnatha Y K; decision dated 03-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

While considering rejection of a plaint, it is the contents of the plaint alone that need to be looked into, as held by the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. ¶51

Naveen Kumar Vs Amarnatha Y K — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.826/2021, a suit for bare injunction founded on an agreement to sell under which possession allegedly remained with the plaintiff, discloses a cause of action and survives the defendant's application for its rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC despite the defendant's claim of possession by part performance. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

While considering rejection of a plaint, it is the contents of the plaint alone that need to be looked into, as held by the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

When the plaint averments make out a clear case that possession is still with the plaintiff in respect of an agreement to sell of the suit property and the parties are at loggerheads, a bare suit for injunction is definitely maintainable.

¶52

Key takeaways

Whether possession was handed over to the defendant under the agreement to sell cannot be found out by the Court below by holding a mini trial, particularly when the suit itself is one for permanent injunction.ratio¶50
If during the trial the defendant establishes by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record that possession was delivered under the agreement to sell, then the suit will have to be dismissed automatically.obiter¶57
At that juncture the defendant may even plead for imposition of appropriate costs including exemplary costs as contemplated under Section 35A of CPC.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (V Srishananda J) — CRP No. 271 of 2022 filed under Section 115 CPC by the defendant in O.S.No.826/2021, a suit for bare injunction, against the order dated 01.12.2021 of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting his I.A.No.III under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which sought dismissal of the plaint for want of cause of action. Held: (i) on a plea for rejection of plaint, only the contents of the plaint are to be looked into; (ii) where the plaint averments clearly show that possession still rests with the plaintiff under an agreement to sell and the parties are at loggerheads, a bare suit for injunction is definitely maintainable; (iii) whether possession was in fact handed over to the defendant under the agreement to sell cannot be determined at the threshold by holding a mini trial, especially in a suit for permanent injunction; (iv) if the defendant later establishes delivery of possession by cogent and convincing trial evidence, the suit will have to be dismissed, and he may then seek appropriate or exemplary costs under Section 35A CPC. Revision petition dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:50855 CRP No. 271 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 271 OF 2022 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NAVEEN KUMAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O UMA KUMAR, R/AT NO. 233, 1ST CROSS NAGARBHAVI II PHASE BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AMARNATHA Y K S/O Y.B. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED 32 YEARS R/AT NO. 309/286 MARUTHINAGARA MAIN ROAD KOGILU CROSS BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVICHANDRA C.O, ADVOCATE AND SRI. K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED ON IA No.III IN OS No.826/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, REJECTING THE IA No.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:50855 CRP No. 271 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri.Sudesh Kumar Acharya U., learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

¶23

Defendant in O.S.No.826/2021 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) by order dated 01.12.2021 by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-18).

¶24

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

¶25

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

¶26

3.1. A suit for bare injunction came to be filed in respect of the suit property involved in O.S.No.826/2021.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:50855 CRP No. 271 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

3.2. The plaintiff claimed that between the plaintiff and defendant, there exists an agreement to sell, but on account of non-payment of the advance amount, possession of the property is retained by the plaintiff and defendant is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, filed the suit for bare injunction.

¶31

3.3. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement by contending that defendant is in possession of the suit property by way of part performance of a contract of agreement to sell. Therefore, question of interference with the suit property by the defendant would not arise at all. Therefore, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to dismiss the suit as there is no cause of action to the suit.

¶32

Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the said application inter alia holding in paragraph 15 and 16 as under:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:50855 CRP No. 271 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

“ 15. It is the contention of the defendant that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property through sale deed dated 18.08.2018 executed by the plaintiff and possession also delivered to him after paying consideration amount and recital of the sale deed discloses the delivery of possession.

¶37

16. The plaint averments reveal that the possession of the schedule property so far held with the plaintiff for the reasons that entire sale consideration amount was not paid to him. The plaint averment reveal that on 27.01.2021 the defendant attempted to enter upon the schedule property. Therefore, the plaint discloses the cause of action. The plaint discloses the cause of action and the plaintiff have no cause of action are two different aspects. When such being the facts, without going for trial the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the averments of the defendant. Therefore, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I.A.No.III filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC dated 04.08.2021 is rejected with costs of Rs.500/-.”

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50855 CRP No. 271 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is

¶43

before this Court, in this revision.

¶44

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the Trial Court misdirected itself in not noticing the fact that defendant was in possession of the suit property by virtue of part performance of the contract and in such circumstances, suit for bare injunction filed by the plaintiff on the pretext that defendant is interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property by the plaintiff would not arise per se.

¶45

Thus, the impugned order has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondent is absent.

¶47

This Court has meticulously perused the material on record in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50855 CRP No. 271 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that whether at all the possession was handed over to defendant under the agreement to sell or not cannot be found out by the Court below by holding a mini trial, that too when the suit itself is one for permanent injunction.

¶51

Further, while considering the rejection of the plaint, it is the contents of the plaint alone that needs to be looked into as is held by the Catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court.

¶52

Thus, when the plaint averments makes out a clear case that the possession is still with the plaintiff and in respect of an agreement to sell of the suit property, the parties are on logger heads, a bare suit for injunction would be definitely maintainable.

¶53

However, the contention of defendant that the plaintiff has already delivered the possession of the suit property under the agreement to sell to the defendant

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:50855 CRP No. 271 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

established by the defendant by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record during the trial, then the suit will have to be dismissed automatically.

¶58

At that juncture, defendant may even plead for imposition of appropriate costs including the exemplary costs as is contemplated under Section 35A of CPC.

¶59