IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100109 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SHRI NARAYAN S/O VENKATRAMAN HEBBAR, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., R/O. KARKI PAIKI SANNA HEGADEKERI, TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581334.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI KULKARNI DINESH MARTAND RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI RAMA NARAYAN NAIK, AGE. 77 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GULIBETTA, HALADIPUR, TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581327.

C LA H X A M N A D N RASHEKAR …RESPONDENT KATTIMANI DCK LKD+ o A a Hi a0 g crt T 0 Ai ena t 0 TN : ta a 0 I i 2t l o MD a0 y n R k A 2 : s a AN 6 H i , gS . I D0 i nH g 3h e h E . d a2 K Cr 3 b w A o y 1 u R a0 rd t L : 0 b A o 2ef X :n3 M c2h AN (BY SRI DM MALLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HONNAVAR IN OS NO.44/2025 DATED 17.09.2025 ON I.A.NO.V, AS NULL AND VOID, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging order dated 17.09.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Honnavar in O.S.no.44/2025 on I.A.no.V, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that revision petition was by defendant in O.S.no.44/2025 filed by respondent – plaintiff for relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession. It was submitted, in said suit, defendant had filed I.A.no.V under Order VII Rule 11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short) for rejection of plaint on ground that plaint did not disclose proper cause of action. Elaborating same, it was submitted that for purpose of seeking declaration of title by way of adverse possession, starting point of adverse possession as well as date on which there was obstruction giving rise to cause of action for filing suit was required to be stated. Since same were omitted, suit would be deemed filed without proper cause of action and liable for rejection. Despite same having been pointed out, trial Court, under impugned order proceeded to reject I.A.no.V.

Therefore, trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and on said ground seeks for allowing revision petition.

3. On other hand, Sri DM Malli learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff opposed revision petition. Relying upon decision of High Court of Orissa in case of Niharkanti Mishra vs. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik and Others, reported in 2025 (2) CCC 37 to contend that question of suit being filed on non- existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, and therefore rejection of application by trial Court was justified.

4. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and material on record.

5. This revision petition is by defendant aggrieved by dismissal of his application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC. Perusal of plaint reveals that suit is filed for declaration of title by way of adverse possession. Though it does not appear to ex-facie disclose that starting point or date from which possession of plaintiff became adverse, on a meaningful reading of entire plaint, it is seen plaintiff stated that after his possession over suit property, he planted coconut, mango, acacia, cashew and other trees, which had grown sky-high i.e., for several years. In prayer he has stated that he is in possession since 35 years. And cause of action was his knowledge about attempt by defendant to sell suit property after strangers visited suit property, on 01.03.2025, which prima-facie appears sufficient. Besides, failure to disclose material particulars would not qualify as a ground for rejection of plaint. While passing impugned order, trial Court has noted same. There appears no irregularity on illegality in exercise of jurisdiction. Henc