IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 703 OF 2025 (IO)

BETWEEN:

1. NARASAMMA W/O. LATE MARANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC HOMEMAKER AND AGRICULTURIST, 2. CHIKKASWAMY S/O. NARASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, BOTH ARE R/O BOMMANAKUPPE VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 120.

…PETITIONERS Digitally signed (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

by SHARADAVANI B AND:

Location: High Court of Karnataka DHARAMENDRAIAH S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. KEMPEGOWDANAGAR, GULARIVE VILLAGE, K. PALASANDRA POST, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 118.

…RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2025 PASSED IN O.S. NO.354/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING IA NO.9 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.2 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC.

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.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. Defendants are the revision petitioners challenging the rejection of application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC in O.S.No.354/2024.

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

3.1. Plaintiff who is the respondent in this revision petition filed a suit in O.S.No.27/2024 before the Vacation Court at Tumakuru in respect of the following schedule property:

“All the piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.136 New No.136/1 totally measuring 1-37.00 acres, kharab land 0-02.00 guntas, jatha measuring 1-35.00 acres, assessed for Rs.3,19 sitauted at Dommanakuppe village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, bounded by:

East – La. Sa. No.166, West – La. Sa. No.137 North – La. Sa. No.166 South – La. Sa. No.137”

3.2. Plaintiff sought for an order of ex-parte injunction which was not granted by the Vacation Court and only emergent notice came to be issued.

3.3. Instead of pursuing the said suit, plaintiff prepones the case to 09.05.2024 and withdraws the suit.

3.4. Post Summer Vacation, when the Courts reopened, plaintiff filed a fresh suit in O.S.No.354/2024. The cause of action in both the suits were practically in verbatim which are culled out hereunder for ready reference:

O.S.No.27/2024 “The cause of action for the suit at about three days back when the defendants are trying to interfere into plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property situated within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.”

O.S.No.354/2024 “The cause of action for the suit at about three days back when the defendants are trying to interfere into plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property situated within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.”

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that since the plaintiff failed to get an order of ex-parte temporary injunction, clandestinely withdrew the suit without seeking leave of the Court under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC, filed a fresh suit on an imaginary cause of action after the Courts were reopened from summer vacation which is not taken note of by the learned Trial Judge and wrongly dismissed the application filed by defendant No.2 under order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition.

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

6. On such perusal of the material on record, no doubt there is a bar for filing a fresh suit by the plaintiff when a plaintiff abandons the cause of action that arose for filing a civil suit.

7. But insofar as the relief of injunction is concerned, each fresh interference makes out a fresh cause of action for the plaintiff to approach the Court.