This Writ Petition is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in Original

Suit No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Sidlaghatta, challenging the order dated 18.03.2019, dismissing

the application-IA.11 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with

Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2.

Brief facts are that, the plaintiffs have filed suit for

declaration, claiming title by way of adverse possession and

consequential relief of permanent injunction against the

defendants. The defendants entered appearance and filed

written statement denying the plaint averments. In the

meanwhile, the defendants have filed IA.11 under Order 7 Rule

11 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on

the ground that the dispute of the parties have been concluded

in Writ Appeal No.1975 of 2007 and therefore, sought for

rejection of the plaint. The said application was resisted by the

plaintiffs. The Trial Court, after considering the material on

record by order dated 18.03.2019, dismissed the application and

5

feeling aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 and 2 have

presented this Writ Petition.

3.

I have heard Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M G Ravisha,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

Sri

Praveen

Kumar

Raikote,

learned

counsel

appearing for the petitioners argued that, the suit is filed by the

plaintiffs, seeking adverse possession in respect of the suit

schedule property and in respect of the very same property, the

rights of the properties has been crystallized by order passed by

this court in Writ Petition No.859 of 2004 dated 29.08.2007,

which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal

No.1975 of 2007 dated 31.10.2012 and therefore, the relief

sought for by the petitioners is not maintainable. Accordingly, he

contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court

requires interference in this Writ Petition.

5.

Per

contra,

Sri

M.G.Ravisha,

learned

counsel

appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned

6

order passed by the trial Court and submitted that the

application is filed in the year 2018 and the suit is of the year

2013 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the writ petition.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, I have carefully considered the impugned order passed

by the trial Court, which would indicate that the plaintiffs have

filed suit seeking declaration with consequential relief of

permanent injunction against the defendants and the suit is

contested by the defendants before the trial Court. The

defendants have filed IA No.11 seeking rejection of the plaint as

it is barred by principle of res-judicata based on the order

passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.859 of 2004 decided on

29.08.2007 which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in

Writ Appeal No.1975 of 2007 dated 31.10.2012. The trial Court,

after considering the material on record, has rejected the

application on the ground that the relief sought for by the

plaintiffs is on the ground of adverse possession and for the

relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect

7

of suit schedule property, and the issues have been framed

based on the pleadings on record. Perusal of the finding recorded

by the trial Court, at paragraph 9 would indicate the trial Court

has applied its mind and arrived at a conclusion that, suit filed

by the plaintiffs cannot be rejected and defendants were failed to

show the sufficient grounds for rejection of the plaint. In that

view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the trial Court is

justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendants. It

also not in dispute that IA No.11 is filed after five years of

initiation of the suit, seeking rejection of the plaint, and hence, I

do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners. However, considering the fact that,

the suit is of the y