IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 342 OF 2025 (IO)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S. DSK SOUTHREN PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD., INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING OFFICE AT DSK HOUSE, J.M. ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE - 411 005, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, M/S SHORE DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., 2. M/S SHORE DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MANTRI DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.41, MANTRI HOUSE, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU - 01, REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI. GIRISH GUPTA H.S.

Digitally signed …PETITIONERS by SHARADAVANI (BY SMT. VANDANA P.L, ADVOCATE)

B Location: High AND:

Court of Karnataka SMT. R. MANJULA W/O R. KRISHNA KISHORE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.501, MUTHARAYASWAMY LAYOUT, BTM LAYOUT, 6TH STAGE, HULIMAVU, BENGALURU - 560 076.

…RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO.26081/2024 ON THE FILE OF LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-74)., DISMISSING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a), (b) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Smt.Vandana P. L., learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. Defendants in O.S.No.26081/2024 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 74) are the revision petitioners challenging the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short).

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

3.1. Plaintiff claims that she has entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants to purchase the property and the value of the subject matter of the sale was to the extent of Rs.2,50,57,150/- and sum of Rs.20,00,000/- said to have been paid as advance sale consideration.

3.2. Plaintiff first filed the suit for injunction. Later on, suit for specific performance. Present suit is one of specific enforcement of the said agreement to sell.

4. Defendant is contesting the matter by filing written statement and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of CPC.

5. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated 17.03.2025.

6. Same is called in question, in this revision petition on the following grounds:

(cid:1) The fact narrated above forms certain grounds and hence the same may be treated as part of grounds to avoid repetition.

(cid:1) It is submitted that impugned order passed by the Hon'ble LXXIII mayphall unat city coval Count Addl., City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-74) at Bengaluru, rejecting the IA No.3 filed by the Petitioners herein seeking for the dismissal of Plaint is contrary to the law, facts and materials available on records and such, the same is liable to be set aside or dismissed.

(cid:1) It is submitted that the present suit is filed for Specific Performance against the Petitioners herein from alienating and encumbering suit schedule B Property. It is a settled principal of law, and the Plaintiff categorically admits that she has not been conveyed with the titles of the property and admittedly she has not paid the agreed sale consideration till date.

(cid:1) It is submitted that, the learned Trial judge below had not applied his judicial mind while giving the reasons the Lrnd., Trial Judge simply stated that Defendant has not made out any grounds to reject the Plaint hence the application filed is dismissed, the learned Trial Judge has not considered as the Petitioners herein has vehemently argued as the present suit is barred by law as per Order II Rule 2 of CPC but the learned trial judge has overlooked the arguments of the Petiti