IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 191 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

1. SRI.K.R.NAGARAJU SHETTY S/O KANDUR RATHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

2. K R KRISHNAMURTHY S/O KANDUR RATHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT YELDUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH P.N., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of 1. SRI. T.A. SRIRAM BABU Karnataka S/O ADINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT YELDUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 IN O.S.NO.275/2013 PASSED ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE HOLDING THAT THE SUBSEQUENT SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT BARRED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF RESPONDENT-JUDICATA BY HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINIVASPURA, PRODUCED HEREWITH, FOR BEING CAPRICIOUS, ARBITRARY, PERVERSE, BIASED AND FOR BEING DELIVERED WITHOUT PROPER JUDICIAL REASONING ON THE ISSUE MUCH AGAINST TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri. Prashanth P.N., learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondents are served and unrepresented.

2. Defendants in O.S.No.275/2013 are the revision petitioners challenging the Order passed by the learned Trial Judge dated 30.11.2021 dismissing the application on the preliminary issue res judicata.

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

4. Plaintiff/respondent had earlier filed a suit in OS No.257/2002. The said suit is now pending before this court in a review petition in Review Petition No.456/2022 whereby, Order passed in RSA No.730/2009 is sought to be reviewed.

5. When the matter stood pending, another suit came to be filed by the very same plaintiff in OS No.275/2013 by the very same plaintiff for the almost similar relief.

6. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement.

7. Learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and one issue that was raised based on the rival pleadings is whether the suit is barred by res judicata. Defendants insisted that the said issue to be tried as a preliminary issue. Therefore parties were heard on the said issue and by impugned Order, learned Trial Judge has recorded a finding that suit is not barred by res judicata and proceeded with the suit.

8. Validity and correctness of the said order is assailed in the present revision petition by the defendants.

9. Sri Prashanth, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that till the review petition is decided on merits, the present Civil Revision Petition cannot be decided as it may have a contradictory result on the merits of the matter.

10. He would also contend that when the Regular Second Appeal came to be withdrawn by the plaintiff without seeking leave to file a fresh suit, filing of the fresh suit per se amounts to res judicata which has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Judge and dismissing the contention of the defendants that suit is barred by res judicata has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.

11. In the light of the arguments put-forth on behalf of the petitioners, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

12. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly the plaintiff withdrew RSA No.730/2009. In other words, suit that was filed by the very same plaintiff in O.S.No.257/2002, suit dismissed.

13. When such is the factual aspect, filing of the second suit was called in question by the defendants on the ground of res judicata.

14. In the first place, question of a suit being barred by