Dismissed¶65

Sri. Narasimha Hegde v. Mr. M.V. Kiran

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025CRP/571/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru — CRP No. 571 of 2023 (NC: 2025:KHC:41019), decided 15.10.2025 by Justice V Srishananda. Keywords: rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11(a)-(d) CPC; Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC; Section 115 CPC revisional jurisdiction; limitation on face of plaint; mixed question of law and fact; insufficiency of court fee; cause of action as bundle of facts; preliminary issue; second round of litigation; W.P No.17225/2021 amendment and expedition direction (order dated 18.10.2021, 18-month outer limit); O.S.No.37/2017; Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to comply with the Order dated 18.10.2021 in W.P No.17225/2021 by seeking reasonable extension; parties directed to cooperate for early disposal of the suit.

Sri. Narasimha Hegde Vs Mr. M.V. Kiran — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the dismissal by the Trial Court of the defendants' application (I.A.No.VI) under Order VII Rule 11(a)-(d) r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint calls for interference in revision. +2 more

¶42

Court's answer

Taking note of these aspects, the impugned order needs no interference in the revisional jurisdiction; the Trial Court is directed to comply with the order dated 18.10.2021 in W.P No.17225/2021 by seeking reasonable extension, and the parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the suit.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

The question of limitation raised in the application is a mixed question of law and fact.

¶59

Key takeaways

If the court fee paid is insufficient, it becomes an issue and the plaintiffs would be called upon to make good the shortage, if any, at the end of the trial.ratio¶60
Cause of action is a bundle of facts and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue so as to throw away the plaint, especially when this Court in W.P No.17225/2021 found the amendment to the plaint necessary.ratio¶61
The Trial Court is directed to comply with the Order dated 18.10.2021 passed in W.P No.17225/2021 by seeking reasonable extension.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under S.115 CPC by the defendants against the order dated 16.06.2023 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, dismissing their application I.A.No.VI under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b)(c)(d) r/w Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.37/2017 (a suit for possession, later amended to add a prayer for declaration). Held, dismissing the revision: (i) the plea that the suit is barred by limitation on the face of the record raises a mixed question of law and fact; (ii) any insufficiency of court fee would surface as an issue, with the plaintiffs to make good the shortage, if any, at the end of the trial; (iii) cause of action being a bundle of facts cannot be decided as a preliminary issue to throw away the plaint, especially when this Court in W.P No.17225/2021 (order dated 18.10.2021) had held the amendment to the plaint necessary and directed expedition of the suit within an outer limit of 18 months; the pendency of the Order VII Rule 11 application had prevented compliance with that direction. The Trial Court was directed to comply with the order dated 18.10.2021 by seeking reasonable extension, and the parties were to cooperate for early disposal of the suit.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.571 OF 2023 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NARASIMHA HEGDE S/O RAMA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574230

¶9

K VENKATRAMAMA HEGDE S/O RAMA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT SHRI RAMANA HOUSE, UMABHAG, D.NO.1-17-1254/5, MDD LANE, CHILIMBI, MANGALORE, D.K.-575015

¶10

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

¶11

DAMODHARA HEGDE S/O RAMA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.- 574230

¶12

SMT.AMITHA HEGDE W/O K.MANJUNATHA HEGDE AGEDA BOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD NEAR ARUNA TALKIES

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K PIN 574 230

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

( BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

MR. M.V. KIRAN S/O M P VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶20

MR M V THARUN KUMAR S/O M P VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶21

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT RATHNAGIRI ESTATE, MUTTIL HOUSE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-673 575.

¶22

WILLIAM D’ SOUZA S/O ANTHONI D SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SOUZA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574 201

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANIKETH FOR SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1 AND R2;

¶24

NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 15.10.2025)

¶25

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2023 PASSED ON I.A No.VI IN O.S.37/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K, DISMISSING THE I.A.No.VI FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a)(b)(c) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Heard Sri Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Aniketh, for Sachin B.S, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶33

Defendants are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of their application I.A.No. 6 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b)(c)(d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶34

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶35

3.1 A suit for possession was filed initially in O.S.No.37/2017. Plaint got amended and included the prayer of declaration in the suit.

¶36

3.2 According to the defendants, the suit is barred by limitation on the face of the record and so also there is no cause of action and court fee paid is also insufficient.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

3.3 Application filed by the defendants was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing written objections.

¶41

Learned Trial Judge after taking note of the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application of the defendants by the impugned order dated 16.06.2023.

¶42

The validity of the dismissal of the application is called in question in this revision petition.

¶43

Sri Ravishankar Shatry, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds that in the revision petition vehemently contented that the suit before the Trial Court per se is barred by limitation and the said aspect of the matter is not taken note of by the learned Trial Judge.

¶44

Further, he also alleges that the court fee paid is insufficient and there is no cause of action to the suit and as such, dismissal of the I.A.No.6 has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶45

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and

¶46

2/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, supports the impugned order.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶51

On such perusal of the material on record, this is the second time that the parties have approached this Court.

¶52

Earlier plaintiffs had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 17225/2021, wherein they questioned the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for amendment.

¶53

However this Court by the Order dated 18.10.2021 allowed the said writ petition and directed that the suit should be expedited as early as possible but within an outer limit of 18 months from the date of receipt of the Order passed in Writ Petition.

¶54

Thereafter, the present application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) is filed by the defendants.

¶55

Because of the pendency of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Trial Court did not dispose of the suit as directed by this Court in the writ petition.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:41019 CRP No. 571 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Further, the question of limitation that is raised in the application which was subject matter of the impugned order is a mixed question of law and fact.

¶60

Again, if the court fee paid is insufficient, there will be an issue and plaintiffs would be called upon to make good the shortage of court fee, if any, at the end of the Trial.

¶61

Cause of action is a bundle of facts and it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue and throw away the plaint especially when this Court in W.P No.17225/2021 has found it that the amendment to the plaint is necessary.

¶62