Dismissed¶¶40

Muralidharrao Raghavendrarao Kulkarni v. Sharadabai Ravajirao Kulkarni

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2026RP/100148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad; Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde; RP No. 100148 of 2025; review petition Order 47 Rule 1 Section 114 CPC; CRP No.100097/2025 dismissed; rejection of plaint application; Order VII Rule 11; suit barred for want of notice to legal representatives of deceased vendor; agreement clause execution of sale deed as and when called upon; scope of trial; Hubballi Dharwad; Sharadabai Ravajirao Kulkarni; HMDC; dismissed 06.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court held that the contention (that after the vendor's death no notice was issued to his legal representatives, barring the suit) cannot be accepted on an Order VII Rule 11 application, as the contention raised falls within the scope of trial. ¶¶39

Muralidharrao Raghavendrarao Kulkarni Vs Sharadabai Ravajirao Kulkarni — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1772 RP No. 100148 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO. 100148 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MURALIDHARRAO RAGHAVENDRARAO KULKARNI AGE. 74 YEARS, OCCUPATTION. AGRICUTURE, 44/72, HONDADAKATTI BUILDING, NEAR SAMBHAVANATTH JAIN TEMPLE, IIND CROSS, HOSUR (EAST) HUBBALLI 580021 (KA).

¶9

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

BHAGYASHREE SUDHEENDRA KULKARNI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION. HOUSEHOLD, 2/5/91, BRINDAVANA, NEAR PANCHALINGESHWAR TTEMPLE, NOOLA GALLI,,SEDAM 585222 (KA).

¶11

PREETI NAGENDRA DESAI AGE. 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION. HOUSEHOLD PLOT NO. 9, SULOCHANA GREEN PARK SOCIETY NEAR MAKING HEADLINES, BEHIND SEASONS BUSINESS CENTER AUNDH, PUNE 411007 (MH).

¶12

RAVI MURALIDHAR KULKARNI, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION. PRIVATE, 44/72, HONDADAKATTI BUILDING, NEAR SAMBHAVANATH JAIN TEMPLE,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1772 RP No. 100148 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

IIND CROSS, HOSUR (EASTT) HUBBALLI 580021 (KA).

¶17

(PETITIONER NO.1-3 IS REP. BY GPA HOLDER THE PETITIONER NO.4)

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI KINI NAGPRASAD SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SHARADABAI RAVAJIRAO KULKARNI AGE. 71 YEARS, OCCUPATION. HOUSEHOLD, CONTENDED ADDRESS KULKARNI BUILDING, NEAR JAIN MANDIR, 2^ND CROSS, HOSUR, HUBBALLI.

¶22

THE HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATTION (HMDC), REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HDMC, HUBBALLI

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2025 DISMISSING THE CRP NO.100097/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW CRP NO.100097/2025 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1772 RP No. 100148 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners.

¶33

This review petition is filed assailing the order dated 20.10.2025. In terms of the impugned order, the petition filed by the review petitioner is dismissed. The review petitioner had assailed the Order rejecting his application to reject the plaint.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the Civil Revision Petition was heard, the clause in the agreement which mandated the vendor to execute the sale deed as and when called upon to do so, was not brought to the notice of the Court.

¶35

It is his further submission that after the death of the vendor, no notice is issued to the legal representatives of vendor/defendants/review petitioners. That being the position, it is contended that the suit is barred.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1772 RP No. 100148 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The Court is of the view that the said contention cannot be accepted on Order VII Rule 11 application and contention raised falls within the scope of trial.

¶40

No apparent error is made out in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶42

CHS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 6

Muralidharrao Raghavendrarao Kulkarni v. Sharadabai Ravajirao Kulkarni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralidharrao Raghavendrarao Kulkarni v. Sharadabai Ravajirao Kulkarni

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 Late Kalaiah Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Channappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Gowramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

K B Chandra Bai Vs K B Chandra Ban Singh

Sri. Balaji Singh Vs Smt. Rashmi P Beliya

Smt. Yellamma Vs Sri. Umesh