Smt. Gangamma Vs Smt.Krishnamma

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS NO.1610/2022 (OLD NO.1215/2022) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE., REJECTING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A) AND (D) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29061 CRP No. 192 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The present civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) R/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1610/2022 dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, the petitioner/ defendant is before this Court.

¶25

2. The respondent herein has filed OS.No.1610/2022 (Old OS.No.1215/2022) for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In that defendant has filed I.A seeking rejection of the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiff has filed a suit without a cause of action with an imaginary ground. Further it is stated that the plaintiff has filed the suit without possession, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is stated that the plaintiff has created some documents in order to knock away the valuable property of the defendant and by suppressing the material facts they have created a document i.e., Saguvali chiti, Official Memorandum, Sketch,

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:29061 CRP No. 192 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

RTC and M.R.No.34/2010-2011 and all these documents are created by the plaintiff along with land grabbers who are trying to grab the property belonging to the defendant and extract the money from him. Hence the suit is not maintainable. It is stated that the suit is filed suppressing several facts and earlier proceedings and an order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.24943/2016 and W.P.No.10361/2022. It is stated that the plaintiff is not in possession and in enjoyment of Sy.No.5 measuring 1.15 acres and the petitioner has not applied for regularisation of the land. They denied the fact that the petitioner had applied for regularization and the land was regularized on 20.07.1978 and it is stated that several proceedings before the Tahsildar/Deputy Commissioner were mentioned. It is the case of the defendant that there is no cause of action to file the suit and the same has to be dismissed.

¶30

3. The trial court by order impugned has rejected the said application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) R/w Section 151 of CPC. The trial Court has observed that on careful reading of the entire plaint it is stated that on 08.04.2022 when the defendant started interfering with the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29061 CRP No. 192 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

plaintiff’s cultivation and after obtaining the revenue records the suit is filed claiming the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Further it is stated that the suit schedule property was acquired by the plaintiff through grant proceedings on 20.07.1978, from the date of grant, she is not in possession and enjoyment over the same. It is the contention of the defendants that there is suppression of the revenue proceedings which took place before the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru and also in the legal proceedings. The trial Court has observed that on perusal of all the above records which clearly goes to show that the proceedings were taken place with respect to the change of khatha between the plaintiff and the defendant. At para No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff clearly stated about the cause of action and also the alleged interference caused to the defendant. Furthermore, whether the plaintiff has fabricated the grant proceedings and other revenue records and whether she has a right title and possession over the suit schedule property or not, it requires a full-fledged trial. At this stage, the defendant has not made out any reasonable grounds to reject the plaint and accordingly dismissed the IA.

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:29061 CRP No. 192 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the trial Court without considering the application that is filed and the affidavit that is filed in support of the same, had rejected the application. The trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the entire basis of the claim of the plaint was found false and is based on the forged and created documents hence alleged cause of action to file the suit was totally false and not in existence. The Trial Court ought to have noted that if the grant order is found false and is not in existence, there was no point in proceeding with the suit. The trial court has failed to consider that the plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands and he is not entitled for any relief before the Court.

¶38

5. Having heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, perused the material on the record. The suit is filed seeking declaration and injunction with respect to the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has stated what is the cause of action to come before the Court. The defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC stating several factors about

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29061 CRP No. 192 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

suppression of facts, the proceedings before the revenue authorities and an order passed by this Court. According to him, in view of all this the plaintiff has no cause of action as such the plaint has to be rejected. The application as filed by the petitioner is contrary to the settled law and all those aspects cannot be considered by the Court in an application that is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. When the defendant files an application to reject the plaint, the Court can only look at the plaint and the documents that are filed along with that. The Court cannot consider the written statement or the affidavit that is filed by the defendant to consider the IA filed for rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court has rightly considered and rightly held that all the issues raised by the petitioner/defendant cannot be considered and rightly rejected the IA filed by the defendant. This court do not find any

¶42

reasons to interfere with the same.

¶43

6. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶44