Dismissed¶95

Sri B v. Nachiketh v Smt M P Sowrabha

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2025CRP/682/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru) | CRP No. 682 of 2025 (IO) | Justice V Srishananda | 08-10-2025 | S.115 CPC revision DISMISSED | refusal to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a)&(d) r/w S.151 CPC | O.S.No.294/2023, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga | HUF/Mitakshara declaration suit | no cause-of-action plea rejected; debts/sale-particulars not pleaded or documented; cross-examination of P.W.1 open to defendants.

What did the court decide?

The grounds urged in the revision petition being nothing but a replica of the contentions urged in support of I.A.No.4 in the affidavit would not make out a ground to reject the plaint. ¶84

Sri B v Nachiketh Vs Smt M P Sowrabha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶95

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in rejecting I.A.No.4 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.294/2023 on the ground that there was no cause of action (plaintiff being allegedly a party to the registered agreement she sought to disown).

¶74

Court's answer

The grounds urged in the revision petition being nothing but a replica of the contentions urged in support of I.A.No.4 in the affidavit would not make out a ground to reject the plaint.

¶84

Ratio / Principle

Neither the affidavit nor the revision-petition grounds plead what debts were incurred by the father, how much was realised from sale of the joint family properties, nor place on record copies of the sale deeds; hence the alleged-debt plea is unsupported by any pleading or document.

¶86

Key takeaways

Merely on the oral say of defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 had incurred huge loss would not be sufficient enough to reject the plaint.ratio¶87
Consequently, there is no merit in any one of the grounds urged in the revision petition.ratio¶91

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (V Srishananda J) — CRP No. 682 of 2025 (IO) under Section 115 CPC, decided 08.10.2025: Dismissed. Revision by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.294/2023 (suit for declaration and consequential relief; plaintiff pleaded that the parties belong to a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara Law, with joint-family kerosene, aluminium-fabrication and real-estate businesses) against the order dated 14.08.2025 of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga, rejecting his I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Sec.151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for want of cause of action. Held: the revision grounds, being a replica of the I.A.No.4 affidavit contentions, make out no ground to reject the plaint; the alleged debts of the father, the amounts realised from sale of joint family properties and the sale deeds are neither pleaded nor documented; and mere oral assertion of huge loss by defendant Nos.1 and 2 cannot sustain rejection of the plaint. The Trial Judge had also noted that, even without a written statement, the defendants remain free to cross-examine P.W.1.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 682 OF 2025 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B.V. NACHIKETH S/O LATE B.S. VIRUPAKSHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, R/O NEAR KGID OFFICE, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA CITY - 577 501.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SAMEER S.N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. M.P. SOWRABHA W/O M.N. PRAVEEN

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE,

¶15

R/O 'KANNAIAH', 1ST CROSS, RAMESHWARA NAGARA, CHIKMAGALURU CITY - 577 101.

¶16

SMT. B.V. UMAMAHESHWARI W/O LATE B.S. VIRUPAKSHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O NEAR KGID OFFICE, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA CITY - 577 501.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. SHEELA RANI W/O B.S. SHRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O I CROSS, JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN OS.NO.294/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (A AND D) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri.Sameer S. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶26

Revision petition is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.294/2023 who failed to contest the suit by filing

¶27

the written statement and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Said application was opposed by the plaintiff

¶31

and by impugned order, learned Trial Judge has rejected the application.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the same, revision petition came to be filed.

¶33

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

¶34

disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶35

5.1. A suit for declaration and consequential relief came to be filed in O.S.No.294/2023.

¶36

5.2. Plaintiff laid the claim by contending that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the children of defendant No.2 and late Virupakshappa and defendant No.3 jointly own item No.5 of suit property. Thus, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 belong to the Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara Law.

¶37

5.3. Virupakshappa being the common prepositus, died on 28.04.2021. Thereafter, defendant No.1 was managing the joint family and he is also running joint

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

family business which consists of sale of kerosene, aluminum fabrication and running of real-estate business. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have got dealership license of BPCL and to carry on the kerosene business. Plaintiff after completion of her Pre-University Education, used to maintain the accounts of sale of kerosene.

¶41

5.4. It is her contention that item No.5 of the suit property came to be purchased by utilizing the joint family funds. It is also her contention that income from the property of suit item No.5 came to be utilized for realestate and aluminum fabrication businesses.

¶42

5.5. It is further contended that plaintiff could not

¶43

attend that last rites of her father’s death on account of Covid-19 Pandemic as her father was infected with Covid19 Pandemic.

¶44

5.6. It is also her contention that she was also affected with Covid-19 Pandemic and she was inpatient in a hospital at Chikkamagaluru.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

5.7. Later, in the first week of July, 2021, plaintiff visited Chitradurga and enquired with defendant No.1 about the share in the property.

¶49

5.8. At that juncture, it is intimated by defendant No.1 that said Virupakshappa has contracted heavy debts and for recovery of the money, they were repeatedly visiting Chitradurga. Being unable to clear the dues, some properties of the joint family were disposed of and proceeds thereof were used for clearing the debts.

¶50

5.9. It is also informed to plaintiff by defendant No.1 that on account of the pressure from the creditors, they had planned to commit suicide. However, plaintiff demanded for the accounts and for which, she was informed to visit the house in the second week of September, 2021 for execution of necessary documents. Plaintiff believing the words of defendants, executed few documents which were misutilized by defendants and therefore, suit came to be filed.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants no doubt entered appearance but order sheet discloses that defendants did not choose to file written statement despite granting extension of time. Defendant No.3 remained exparte and defendant Nos.1 and 2 engaged the services of an Advocate. All possible accommodation was granted for the defendants to file written statement but they failed to do so and therefore, matter was posted to recording of evidence of the plaintiff.

¶55

On 16.12.2024, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1

¶56

and her further examination was also conducted. Matter stood posted for cross-examination. At that juncture, an application for amendment of plaint came to be filed. Objections were filed and application for amendment came to be allowed. Thereafter, chance was also given to the defendants for filing additional written statement if any.

¶57

Even that opportunity was not utilized by the defendants but they filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC holding that there was no

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

cause of action to file the suit. Said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed written objections and learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned order, application came to be rejected inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.8 to 11 as under:

¶61

“8. Further, the counsel for defendants has also argued that, the plaintiff has drafted the plaint cleverly and as such in the plaint material facts are absent and due to lack in material pleadings it do not gives right to cause of action and as such clever drafting of plaint is creating to illusion and cause of action which is not permitted in law. No doubt as per arguments canvassed by the counsel for defendants is that the plaintiff has drafted the plaint cleverly and the material facts are absent, but at this stage it is not proper and correct to say that the present plaint is liable to be rejected in view of drafting the plaint cleverly, because whenever the suit is filed it is the option of the plaintiff to file the suit as per his/her wish and will and the duty of the other side is to disprove the case of the plaintiff and to prove their contention taken in the written statement by leading cogent, oral and documentary evidence and as such the defendants can produce cogent documents in order to prove her contention by falsifying the case of the plaintiff and as such the defendants have no right to tell the plaintiff not to draft the plaint cleverly and as per defendants if some material facts are absent even then there will be opportunity to the plaintiff to file amendment application by curing the defects by mentioning the material facts. Thus, when the plaintiff has filed the suit, the right is available to the plaintiff to draft the plaint and mention the facts

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

as per his/her wish and mere not drafting the material facts in the plaint and clever drafting the plaint is not a ground to reject the plaint and moreover in order to accept the contention of defendants the trial is required and as such the defendant No. 1 and 2 can prove the same in their evidence. Thus, the defendant No.1 and 2 have not made out prima facie and valid reasons to consider the reliefs sought for in the application and as such the arguments canvassed by counsel for defendant No. 1 and 2 is not sustainable at this stage.

¶65

9. Further, the counsel for defendant No. 1 and 2 has taken a contention and argued that the registered Release Deed and Gift Agreement are executed by the plaintiff and the husband of plaintiff is one of the witness to the said documents and as such the said facts are not disclosed and not mentioning the material facts is a ground to reject the plaint. No doubt the defendant No. 1 and 2 have argued that the material facts regarding the signature made by husband of plaintiff as a witness in a registered Release Deed and Gift Agreement is not mentioned, but even this contention taken by the defendant No.1 and 2 is not a ground to reject the plaint at this stage, because the suit filed by the plaintiff to declare that the said Release Deed and Gift Agreement as not binding on the plaintiff and no doubt the husband of plaintiff had signed to the said registered documents as a witness but the said aspect can be proved by the defendant No. 1 and 2 in their evidence and without evidence at this stage in view of contention taken by the defendant No. 1 and 2 it is not possible to accept and as such in order to accept the contention of defendants the trial is required and without trial it is not proper and correct to accept the contention of the defendant No. 1 and 2 because if the contention of defendant No. 1 and 2 is considered on the basis of allegations made in he affidavit then it is nothing but accepting the contention of the defendant No. 1 and 2 without

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

trial. Thus the trial is required and as such the arguments canvassed by the counsel for defendant No. 1 and 2 is not sustainable.

¶69

10. Further the counsel for defendant No. 1 and 2 has also relied a judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 2717/2023 by arguing that in this decision it is clearly stated that when the plaint is vexatious illusory cause of action and bared by limitation then the plaint is required to be rejected by looking into the averments made in the plaint. No doubt, the defendant No. 1 and 2 have produced this citation. But the citation produced by the defendant No. 1 and 2 is not helpful to the present case because on going through plaint allegations it do not goes to show that the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of vexatious and reckless allegations. Thus, as vexatious and reckless allegations are not found in the plaint, the decision furnished by the counsel for the defendant No. 1 and 2 is not sustainable to this case.

¶70

11. Further, while deciding the application seeking for rejection of the plaint, the allegations made in the plaint is required to be taken into consideration and not the written statement averments. Thus, the plea urged by the counsel for defendants is not possible to accept and in view of above discussion I answer this point No.1 in the Negative.”

¶71

9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1

¶72

and 2 are before this Court, in this revision petition.

¶73

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶74

reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that learned Trial Judge committed a grave

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

error in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC inasmuch as plaintiff being a party to the agreement; could not disown the registered agreement and there is no cause of action to the suit.

¶78

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶79

On such perusal of the material on record, learned Trial Judge in paragraph No.10 has specifically observed that even in the absence of written statement, defendants have got a right to cross-examine P.W.1 and elicit necessary answers from P.W.1 in the witness box which would facilitate them to oppose the suit.

¶80

Further, despite granting sufficient time and extension, written statement was not filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 nor opportunity that was available to the defendants at the time of amendment of the plaint is also utilized by the defendants.

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:39579 CRP No. 682 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

Further, the grounds urged in the revision petition which were nothing but replica of the contention urged in support of I.A.No.4 in the affidavit would not

¶85

make out a ground to reject the plaint.

¶86

Moreover, what were the debts incurred by the father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and how much amount has been realized from the sale of the properties, copy of the sale deeds through which defendants have sold the joint family properties for the purpose of discharging the debts of the father are not pleaded either in the affidavit or before this Court in the grounds nor any documents have been placed on record to support and substantiate such contentions.

¶87

Merely on the oral say of defendant Nos.1 and 2 that father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 had incurred huge loss would not be sufficient enough to reject the plaint.

¶88