Sri Siddalingaiah v. Sri Pradeep M P

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2025CRP/453/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP 453/2023, Karnataka HC, V Srishananda J, 04-12-2025; S.115 CPC revision against rejection of IA No.10 (Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC plaint-rejection application) in O.S.24/2019, Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM Mandya; allowed on respondents' memo; plaint rejected; liberty to plaintiffs to seek setting aside of compromise decree; Trial Judge to consider such application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; plaint rejected with liberty to the plaintiffs to file an application seeking setting aside of the compromise decree insofar as they are concerned; the Trial Judge who recorded the compromise to consider any such application on merits in accordance with law. ¶¶67

Sri Siddalingaiah Vs Sri Pradeep M P — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S. No. 24/2019 should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, pressed through this revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the trial court's order rejecting IA No. 10. +1 more

¶¶56

Court's answer

Placing on record the memo filed by learned counsel for the respondents, the revision petition is allowed.

¶¶66

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the plaint is rejected, with liberty to the plaintiff to file a necessary application seeking setting aside of the compromise decree insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned.

¶¶69

Key takeaways

If such an application is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, the learned Trial Judge who recorded the compromise shall consider the said application on merits in accordance with law and dispose of the same.ratio¶¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (V Srishananda, J.), Civil Revision Petition No. 453 of 2023 (IO), decided 04-12-2025: Revision under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 29.05.2023 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya rejecting IA No. 10 (filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC) for rejection of the plaint in O.S. No. 24/2019. On a memo filed by counsel for respondents 1 and 2 praying disposal with liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the trial court (referencing O.S. No. 78/2012), the Court placed the memo on record, allowed the revision petition, rejected the plaint, and granted the plaintiffs liberty to file an application seeking setting aside of the compromise decree insofar as they are concerned, directing that the Trial Judge who recorded the compromise consider such application on merits in accordance with law.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 453 OF 2023 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,

¶9

SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O SIDDALINGAIAH,

¶10

SRI. MAHESHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SIDDALINGAIAH,

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. M S BHYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SIDDALINGAIAH,

¶13

ALL ARE R/O MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI PRADEEP M.P. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O PUTTEGOWDA,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R/O MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI,

¶21

MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402

¶22

SMT. PUNYAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O HEMANTH, R/AT B K NAGAR YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE - 560 022

¶23

SRI. M S SWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,

¶24

SRI. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,

¶25

SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,

¶26

SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,

¶27

R3 TO R6 ARE R/O MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402

¶28

SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA D/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS,

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SMT. YASHODHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O RUDRAPPA D/O LATE CHANNAMMA, R/O B HOSUR VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402

¶32

SMT. NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O KARIGOWDA D/O LATE CHANNAMMA R/O H MALLIGERE VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402

¶33

SMT. PUTAMANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O KARIGOWDA D/O LATE CHANNAMMA R/A MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASASALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402

¶34

SMT. LATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEAS, W/O RAMESHGOWDA, D/O LATE CHANNAMMA R/O DODDAGARUDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

DEVARAJU DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶38

SMT. SUDHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O LATE DEVARAJU,

¶39

SRI. BHARATH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVARAJU,

¶40

SRI. SHARATH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVARAJU,

¶41

R11 TO R13 ARE R/AT B HOSURU VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI,

¶42

MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402

¶43

SMT. PUTTAMMA

¶44

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O VENKATESH D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA R/AT BEHIND SOMAKESHAVASWAMY TEMPLE NAGAMANGALA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 405

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R3 - M.S. SWAMY - SERVED

¶47

R4 - PUTTASWAMY -SERVED

¶48

R5 - SHIVALINGAIAH - SERVED

¶49

R6 - JAYAMMA - SERVED

¶50

R7 - YASHODHA - SERVED

¶51

R8 - NAGARATHNA - SERVED

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

R9 - PUTAMANI - SERVED

¶55

R10 - LATHA - SERVED R11 - SUDHA - SERVED R12 - BHARATH - SERVED R13 - SHARATH - SERVED R14 - PUTTAMMA - SERVED)

¶56

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2023 PASSED ON IA NO. 10 IN O.S. NO.24/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA REJECTING THE IA NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶57

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

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a

¶61

memo which reads as under:

¶62

"The counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 most respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court please to dispose of the above petition with liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the trial court and seek to be open the Suit in O.S.No.78/2012 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya in the interest of justice and equity."

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023

¶64

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Placing the memo on record, revision petition is

¶67

allowed .

¶68

Consequently, plaint is rejected with liberty for

¶69

the plaintiff to file necessary application seeking for setting aside the compromise decree insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned.

¶70

If such an application is filed by the

¶71

respondents/plaintiffs, learned Trial Judge who recorded the compromise shall consider the said application on merits in accordance with law and dispose of the same.

¶72

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶73

SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri Siddalingaiah v. Sri Pradeep M P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddalingaiah v. Sri Pradeep M P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Dayalan Vs Kum. a. Anusha

M/S Arkay Industries Vs Sri M Nagaraj

Smt Suguna Mani Vs Smt Gunamba

Smt. Leena Chittiappa. C Vs Sri. Mahesh. K P.

Smt v Lakshmi Vs Sri S Anil Kumar

Rudresha C H Vs Nandibasappa