B. S. Lalitha vs Bhuvanesh - 2026 Supreme(SC) 546

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 546

SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
B. S. Lalitha – Appellant
Versus
Bhuvanesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.j. Amith, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kanyalur, Adv. Ms. Divya Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ashritsai Torgal, Adv. Ms. Tanya Chillar, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Ms. Christi Jain, AOR Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR Ms. Anisha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arpit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ishrafil Ansari, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal, directed against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Civil Revision Petition No. 144 of 2023, whereby the revision petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (legal representatives of Defendant No. 4 in the suit), stood allowed setting aside the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No. 5352/2007, allowing I.A. No. IV filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, ‘the CPC’), and rejecting the plaint.

3. The central question that arises in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in allowing a second application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in a suit for partition filed by the daughters of a Hindu male who died intestate, when an earlier application under Order VII Rule 11(d) raising substantially the same issue had been dismissed by the High Court itself in Regular First Appeal No. 168 of 2009, and that order had attained finality. The appeal also raises the connected question of whether Section 6(5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 546

SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHB. S. Lalitha – AppellantVersusBhuvanesh – Respondent

Cases Referred (11)

SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
B. S. Lalitha – Appellant
Versus
Bhuvanesh – Respondent