IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 26 OF 2025 (IO)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI T Y UDAY KUMAR S/O YEDDIYURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AADHAAR NO.9991 6803 7023

2. SMT. ROOPA UDAY KUMAR, W/O T.Y. UDAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, AADHAAR NO.2615 8658 7957 BOTH RESIDING AT HANUMANTHAPURA LINK ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA 572103.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

signed by MALATESH K C 1. SRI G N NAGARAJ S/O LATE. G.P. NATARAJ, Location:

HIGH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, COURT OF R/A GANDHINAGARA EXTENSION, KARNATAKA TUMAKURU-572101

2. SRI. S.C. LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O, CHELUVALAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SMT K.L. KAVITHA, W/O S.C. LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SL.No.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF SAI MAKUTAHARA, HANUMANTHAPURA, LINK ROAD, VIDYANAGARA, TUMAKURU-572103.

4. SRI. S.T. RAJANNA, S/O THIMMALAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OPPOSITE POST OFFICE, BHIMASANDRA, TUMAKURU -572107

5. SRI. S.K. RAGHAVENDRA S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BEHIND SHIVANNA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, GANDHINAGARA, TUMAKURU -572102.

6. SRI. GURUSIDDABASAPPA, S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SIRA GATE TUMAKURU -572 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S B TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2024 PASSED ON IA No.XVII IN O.S.No.488/2019 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE IA NO.XVII FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE

11(a), (b) AND (d) OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Sadanand G. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.B. Totad, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Defendants in O.S.No.488/2019 are the revision petitioners challenging the rejection of their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of want of cause of action and limitation.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

4. A suit in O.S.No.488/2019 came to be filed by the respondent who was the defendant in O.S.No.477/2017.

5. The plaint in O.S.No.477/2017 was rejected and ultimately the suit was ordered to be tried on merits by order of this Court in RSA No.931/2021, dated 15.04.2024.

6. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the agreement dated 03.05.2016, whereby revision petitioner is entitled for 33.3% and second plaintiff in O.S.No.477/2017 and the respondent in this case are together entitled for 33.4% and

33.3% for the investment returns in respect of the transaction involved in the agreement dated 03.05.2016.

7. There is a serious dispute with regard to the terms of the agreement and therefore suit in O.S.No.477/2017 came to be filed by the revision petitioner and without making counter claim in the said suit, the respondent herein filed a fresh suit in O.S.No.488/2019 suppressing the pendency of the earlier suit. Therefore according to the revision petitioner, there is no cause of action to the suit and suit is barred by limitation.

8. Learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the respondent dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner inter alia holding in paragraph 13 to 15 as under:

“13. Here in this case, Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC is also pressed into service. According to the first defendant, the principles of res-judicata is applicable to this case and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is obvious from the record that there is another suit bearing O.S.No.477/2017 between the plaintiff and defendants. That suit was instituted by the defendants against the plaintiff for partition and such other reliefs. In fact, the said suit is still pending adjudication before this court itself. In order to attract section 11 of CPC, there must be two su