IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 180 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

1. MR. MOHAMMED SIRAJUL HASSAN S/O LATE A.H. KHAISER AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

2. MRS. SHAHEEN RAHMAN W/O MR. MOHMMED SIRAJUL HASSAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 574, 30TH B CROSS, TILAKNAGAR JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SYED AKMAL HASAN RAZVI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

SHARADAVANI B Location: High

1. SRI. ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN Court of Karnataka S/O LATE KHADER KHAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. A-85, OLD NO. 225 NAVAB HYDRALI MAIN ROAD, KALASIPLAYAM BENGALURU - 560 002.

2. SMT. ZAREEN BEGUM W/O LATE L.S. RAHAMAN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO. 46, BENSON TOWN BENSON ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 046.

3. SRI. SALEEM RAHEMAN S/O LATE L.S. RAHAMAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

4. SRI. VASEEM RAHEMAN S/O LATE L.S. RAHAMAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 23/4, FLAT NO. 401 BLOOMSBURY APARTMENTS, BENSON TOWN, BENSON ROAD BANGALORE - 560 046.

…RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6136/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, REJECTING APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF THE CPC FOR RJECTION OF PLAINT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Syed Akmal Hasan Razvi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. This Court did not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondents having regard to the issue to be trashed out in this revision.

The revision petitioners are defendants No.4 and 5 in O.S.No.6136/2014, wherein an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC was filed seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed in their favour by defendants No.1 to 3.

2. Facts in a nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under:

Respondent no.1 filed a suit for specific enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 25.03.2013 in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as the suit property):

"All that piece and parcel of the shop premises bearing old No.225, New No.A-85, measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 11½ feet consisting of Ground Floor comprising in the property bearomg No.226, situated at Kalasipalyam Main Road now known as Nawab Hyderali Khan Road, Bangalore-560 002 with undivided share in the property and bounded on the:-

East:- Road West:- Private Property North:- Private Property South:- Shop No.224 and New No.A-84"

3. When the said agreement was in existence, without canceling the agreement, without repudiating the contract, defendant Nos.1 to 3 sold the property in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 by sale deed dated 06.08.2013.

4. The plaintiff, left with no alternative, filed the suit for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell dated

25.05.2013.

5. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 entered appearance before the Trial Court pursuant to the suit summons and filed written statement, inter alia, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC contending that without seeking the cancellation of the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5, the suit is not maintainable.

6. The plaintiff opposed the said application.

7. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing the parties, rejected the said application, inter alia, holding in paragraph Nos.6 to 8 as under:

6. POINT NO.1 well established principle that to reject plaint, the averments made in the plaint atone will have to be taken into consideration and not the defence of the defendant as held in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported ILR 2016 Kar 2429 (SN Triven Sri T. Shankar), wherein it has held that "Rejection of the plaint While deciding the application filed under 07, R11 CPC, can the written statement and other materials filed by the defendant in support o