Dismissed¶82

Smt. Hombalamma v. Smt. Siddamma

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2025CRP/315/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC; rejection of plaint; cause of action; plaint averments only; no defence or evidence at demurrer stage; late-stage Order 7 Rule 11 application; Section 115 CPC revision; Karnataka High Court; CRP No. 315 of 2025; O.S.No.274/2013 Nelamangala; release deed dated 10.11.2005; partition suit; Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa (2008 SCC OnLine SC 727). Result: revision petition dismissed; trial Court's refusal to reject plaint upheld.

What did the court decide?

None; the civil revision petition was rejected and the trial Court's order dismissing I.A.No.6 (Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) application) stands. ¶82

Smt. Hombalamma Vs Smt. Siddamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the civil revision petition was rejected and the trial Court's order dismissing I.A.No.6 (Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) application) stands.

¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in O.S.No.274/2013 dismissing I.A.No.6 — the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint — is liable to be set aside in this revision under Section 115 CPC. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

The trial Court's rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) is in tune with law; consequently the civil revision petition lacks merit and stands rejected/dismissed.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

In an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), the enquiry is confined to the averments in the plaint; the defence put up or the evidence led by the parties cannot be looked into, and the plaint averments here made out a clear cause of action notwithstanding that the application was moved at a late stage after about 7 years of contest.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC (Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; M. Nagaprasanna, J.; decided 11.08.2025) by the defendant in O.S.No.274/2013 challenging the order dated 20.02.2025 of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala dismissing I.A.No.6, her application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint in a suit by respondent No.1 for declaration that a registered release deed dated 10.11.2005 was not binding on her and for partition of 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The application was filed about 10 years after institution, after leading evidence. Held, dismissing the petition: the rejection was 'in tune with law' because in an Order VII Rule 11(a)/(d) inquiry only the averments in the plaint are to be looked into — neither the defence nor the evidence led — and the plaint averments made out a clear cause of action, the petitioner having contested the suit for over 7 years. Reliance placed on Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 727 (paras 21, 22, 32-41). Petition rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31420 CRP No. 315 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 315 OF 2025 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. HOMBALAMMA, W/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, NAVARANG DRUG HOUSE ROAD, GORAGUNTEPALYA, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SUNITHA P.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. SIDDAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, R/AT NO.78/79, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶15

SRI. PANDURANGAIAH, S/O LATE VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, ATTUR LAYOUT, 5^TH CROSS, ANANDA NAGAR, ATTUR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:31420 CRP No. 315 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. RAMACHANDRA, S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶20

SMT. RADHA. H.R, D/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶21

SMT. REKHA. H.R, D/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶22

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. SAMPURNA, D/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶24

SMT. GOWRAMMA, D/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶25

SRI. VENKATESH, S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.6, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, NAVARANG DRUG HOUSE ROAD, GORAGUNTEPALYA, YASHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31420 CRP No. 315 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

SHAKUNTHALA, W/O VASUDEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.539, 1^ST BLOCK, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 096.

¶30

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA IN O.S.NO.274/2013 DATED 20.02.2025 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.1/PLAINTIFF BY ALLOWING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION WHICH IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶34

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:31420 CRP No. 315 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 20.02.2025, by which the concerned Court rejects the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint.

¶41

Heard Smt.Sunitha P.C. learned counsel for the

¶42

petitioner and have perused the material on record.

¶43

A suit in O.S.No.274/2013 is instituted seeking declaration that the registered release deed dated 10.11.2005 is not binding on the plaintiff-first respondent and also claiming the partition of 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property. The petitioner files detailed Statement of Objections denying every contention in the plaint. The trial then progresses in its normal course, 10 years after the institution of the suit on the ground that an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) can be preferred at any stage during the proceedings, after leading

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31420 CRP No. 315 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

evidence, files an application. The concerned Court rejects the application on the score that what is to be looked into while answering the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d) is not the defense that is put up or the evidence that is led in by the parties. What is to be looked into is averments in the plaint. The averments in the plaint would make out a clear cause of action for institution of the suit and the petitioner having contested the suit for over 7 years and the trial progressing to a large extent, notwithstanding the fact that an application can be filed at any stage, the plaint averment clearly indicated the cause of action. The concerned Court has rejected the application, the rejection of which is in tune with law.

¶47

It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the

¶48

Apex Court in KAMALA AND OTHERS vs. K.T. ESHWARA SA AND OTHERS, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 727 , wherein at paras 21, 22, 32 to 41, it is observed as follows:

¶49

"21. Order 7 Rule 11( d ) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:31420 CRP No. 315 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

be filed on more than one ground specified in various subclauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause ( d ) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another.

¶54

22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11( d ) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision.

¶55

…… …….. ……...

¶56

32. We may proceed on the assumption that the shares of the parties were defined. There was a partition amongst the parties in the sense that they could transfer their undivided share. What would, however, be the effect of a partition suit which had not been taken to its logical conclusion by getting the properties partitioned by metes and bounds is a question which, in our opinion, cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Order 7 Rule 11( d ) of the Code. Whether any property is available for partition is itself a question of fact.

¶57

33. Whether the suit would be maintainable, if the plaintiff had not questioned the validity of deeds of sale, is not the question which can be answered by us at this stage.

¶58

34. The only contention raised before the learned trial Judge was the applicability of the principles of res judicata. Even for the said purpose, questions of fact cannot be gone into. What can only be seen are the averments made in the plaint. What inter alia would be relevant is as to whether for the said purpose the properties were sold by reason of any

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31420 CRP No. 315 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

arrangement entered into by and between the parties out of court; whether they had accepted the partition or whether separate possession preceded the actual sale; or whether the contention that a presumption must be drawn that for all practical purposes the parties were in separate possession, are again matters which would not fall for consideration of the court at this stage.

¶62

35. The appellant-plaintiffs might not have prayed for any decree for setting aside the deeds of sale but they have raised a legal plea that by reason thereof the rights of the coparceners have not been taken away. Their status might not be of the coparceners, after the preliminary decree for partition was passed but as we have indicated hereinbefore the same cannot be a subject-matter of consideration in terms of Order 7 Rule 11( d ) of the Code.

¶63

36. One of the grounds taken in the counter-affidavit of Respondents 10, 11, 13 and 17 under Order 7 Rule 11( d ) of the Code is as under:

¶64

“16. So far as Item 8 of the Schedule A, the subsequent purchases have made flats and 80% have been sold to third party and the third-party interest have been created and third parties are not made parties before the Court. Hence, the suit is bad in law for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Moreover, third-party interest has been created and separate khatas have been issued.”

¶65

37. What would be its effect is again a question which cannot fall for determination under Order 7 Rule 11( d ) of the Code. These facts require adjudication. The identity of the properties which were the subject-matter of the earlier suit vis-à-vis the properties which were subsequently acquired and the effect thereof is beyond the purview of Order 7 Rule 11( d ) of the Code.

¶66

38. Whether the properties mentioned in the plaint are available for partition is essentially a question of fact.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:31420 CRP No. 315 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Whether an order of injunction was obtained on the basis of a misleading statement in the earlier suit or whether they were entitled therefor are not the questions which, in our opinion, can be gone into at this stage. Moreover, it is contended that some lands have been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority. But, we do not know in whose favour the awards were made and even if somebody has received the awarded amount, what would be the effect thereof.

¶71

39. We may place on record that the plaintiffs are said to be guilty of suppression of facts, as would appear from Para 2 of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11( d ) of the Code, but then what would be the effect of such suppression has to be determined. (See S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1994 SC 853] .) What would be the effect of non-availability of the property vis-à-vis the contentions of the respondents in regard to Item 8 is a question which requires further probe.

¶72

40. Order 7 Rule 11( d ) of the Code serves a broad purpose as has been noted in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [(2004) 9 SCC 512] in the following terms: (SCC p. 560, para 133)

¶73

“ 133 . The idea underlying Order 7 Rule 11( a ) is that when no cause of action is disclosed, the courts will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of a suit. Having regard to the changes in the legislative policy as adumbrated by the amendments carried out in the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts would interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the court's resources being used up on cases which will serve no useful purpose. A litigation which in the opinion of the court is doomed to fail would not further be allowed to be used as a device to harass a litigant. (See Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 Supp SCC 315] , SCC at pp. 324-35.)”

¶74

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:31420 CRP No. 315 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

But therein itself, it was held: (SCC p. 562, para 139)

¶78

“ 139 . Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.”

¶79

41. In C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai [(2007) 14 SCC 183 : (2007) 12 Scale 163] this Court held: (SCC pp. 188-89, para 8)

¶80

“ 8 . An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defence. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510] )”

¶81

In the light of the order being in tune with law and finding

¶82

no merit in the subject petition, the petition stands rejected .

¶83

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶84

CBC

¶85

List No.: 4 Sl No.: 16

Smt. Hombalamma v. Smt. Siddamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hombalamma v. Smt. Siddamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M S Raghu Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri Ashok Kheny Vs Abraham T J

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Vs the Commercial Bank Retired Employees

Smt.Narasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Rajanna H Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project (Kship-Ii) Vs M/S Kmc Vdb(Jv)