Dismissed¶56

Sri v. Padmanabhaia v Sri Kalyan B. Badami

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2025CRP/707/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of plaint; retaining cause of action; Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC; Section 115 CPC revision; serious dispute as to title; third-party ownership claim; suit for permanent injunction; illegal construction; I.A.No.6 rejection upheld; liberty to file comprehensive suit; O.S.No.8381/2023; XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-12) Bengaluru; CRP No. 707 of 2025; Karnataka High Court; dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Since there is a serious dispute as to the title in respect of the suit property, the cause of action which arose on 02.12.2023, 08.12.2023 and 15.12.2023 cannot be retained with regard to the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. ¶47

Sri v Padmanabhaia Vs Sri Kalyan B. Badami — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's rejection of I.A.No.6 filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC seeking withdrawal of the plaint retaining the cause of action warranted interference in revision under Section 115 CPC.

¶28

Court's answer

¶47

Key takeaways

If the plaintiff is intending to file a comprehensive suit, he may work out his remedy in accordance with law.obiter¶51
The Court observed that when the application seeking amendment of the plaint is allowed at the plaintiff's request, the application seeking withdrawal of the plaint retaining the cause of action under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) CPC is stated to be 'thus justified' in the facts and circumstances of the case; this passage sits uneasily with the ultimate dismissal of the revision petition and is flagged as internally inconsistent (possibly a typographical omission).¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code dismissed. The plaintiff in O.S.No.8381/2023 (a suit for permanent injunction restraining alleged illegal construction) had applied under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC (I.A.No.6) for withdrawal of the plaint retaining the cause of action; the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-12), Bengaluru, rejected that application by order dated 09.04.2025. Upholding the rejection, the High Court (V Srishananda J) held that since there is a serious dispute as to the title of the suit property - a third party having filed a suit claiming ownership - the question of retaining the cause of action which arose on 02.12.2023, 08.12.2023 and 15.12.2023 cannot be retained with regard to the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff was left free to work out his remedy in accordance with law if he intends to file a comprehensive suit. No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 707 OF 2025 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI V PADMANABHAIA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 027

¶10

REP : BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY T K, S/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT THIRUPALYA, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANEKAL, BANGALORE-560 099

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI VEERESH M. UPPIN FOR SRI K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI KALYAN B. BADAMI S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.270, “RENUKA NILAYA”, 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT, VOLAGEREHALLI, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, DUBASIPALYA, R.V.C.E POST,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025

HC-KAR

BANGALORE-560059

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.C.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN OS.NO.8381/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-12), BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 1(3) OF CPC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard Sri Veeresh M. Uppin, learned counsel appearing

¶27

on behalf of Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.C. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶28

The present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the Order passed on I.A.No.6, filed by the plaintiff under Order No. XXIII Rule 1 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶29

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

¶30

Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up illegal construction in

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’):

¶35

“All the part and parcel of the property bearing site No.29, East to west 30 feet and North to South 40 feet totally measuring 1200 sq. feet, carved out in Sy.No.45/1 and 44/8 situated at Valagerahalli village, Kengere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on the :

¶36

East by : Site bearing no.30 West by : Road North by : Road South by : Site bearing No.28.”

¶37

Plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 01.12.1988. Plaintiff also contended that plaintiff is a senior citizen and presently residing in Sampangiramnagara.

¶38

On 02.12.2023 when plaintiff visited the suit property for cleaning, defendant without any right, title or interest over the suit property interfered with the possession of the suit property and obstructed the plaintiff not to carry out cleaning work in the suit property.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

It is further contended that defendant with an intention to grab the valuable property of the plaintiff, on 08.12.2023 started illegal construction on the suit property and therefore, filed the suit for permanent injunction as aforesaid.

¶42

Plaintiff filed applications for amendment of the plaint and also withdrawal of the plaint retaining the cause of action whereas a third party/stranger filed a suit claiming that he is owner of the suit property.

¶43

Cause of action paragraph in the plaint reads as

¶44

under:

¶45

“The cause of action for the suit arose on 02.12.2023 the day on which the defendant illegally tried to enter upon the schedule property by force and on 08.12.2023 the day on which the defendant started illegal construction on the schedule property and 15.12.2023 the day on which the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the police, BESCOM and BBMP about illegal act of defendant and cause of action continue even to this day.”

¶46

Since there is a serious dispute as to the title in

¶47

respect of the suit property, question of retaining the cause of action which arose on 02.12.2023, 08.12.2023 and 15.12.2023

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44173 CRP No. 707 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

cannot be retained with regard to the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.

¶51

If the plaintiff is intending to file a comprehensive suit, he may work out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶52

Further, when the application seeking amendment

¶53

of the plaint is allowed by the Court at the request of the plaintiff, the application seeking withdrawal of the plaint retaining the cause of action as is contemplated under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) CPC is thus justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶54

Accordingly, the following :

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) Revision petition stands dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs.

¶57

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶58

Sri v. Padmanabhaia v Sri Kalyan B. Badami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Padmanabhaia v Sri Kalyan B. Badami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramakrishnappa Vs Shushrusha Nursing Home

Smt.Nikitha a P Vs Sri.S. Ranjith

B C Subramanyam Vs the Commissioner

Mr P Gopal Vs Mr P Vasu

Sri v Surya Prakash Vs Smt. G N Manjula Devi

Smt. Nischitha Shetty M .K @ Nischitha M.K Vs Sri. Udayakumar K S