High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Civil Revision Petition in Suit for Declaration and Injunction — Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Denied. Court holds that the plaint discloses a cause of action and is not barred by limitation, as the suit is based on a registered sale deed executed in 2019 and the plaintiff's possession was allegedly disturbed in 2022.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, defendants in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, filed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order dated 23.09.2024 rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) claiming title based on a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2019 executed by the defendants' father. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were attempting to dispossess them and that they were in possession of the suit property. The defendants argued that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was barred by limitation because the sale deed was executed in 2019 and the suit was filed in 2022. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the plaint does disclose a cause of action as the plaintiffs claimed possession and alleged disturbance in 2022. The court also held that the suit is not barred by limitation because the cause of action for injunction arose in 2022 when the defendants allegedly interfered with possession. The court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the trial court's order.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC - Cause of Action - The court considered whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction based on a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2019 and alleged disturbance of possession in 2022. The court held that the plaint does disclose a cause of action and is not barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose in 2022 when possession was allegedly disturbed. (Paras 1-10)

B) Limitation - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court examined whether the suit was barred by limitation. The sale deed was executed in 2019, but the plaintiffs claimed possession and alleged disturbance in 2022. The court held that the suit is within limitation as the cause of action for injunction arose in 2022. (Paras 5-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaint in OS No.36/2022 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for lack of cause of action and being barred by limitation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. The order of the trial court dated 23.09.2024 rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is upheld.

Law Points

  • Order VII Rule 11 CPC
  • Rejection of Plaint
  • Cause of Action
  • Limitation
  • Suit for Declaration and Injunction
  • Registered Sale Deed
  • Possession
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 8

Civil Revision Petition No.100026 of 2025

2025-12-15

M. Nagaprasanna

Sri. Pavan B. Doddatti (for petitioners), Sri. Girish A. Yadawad (for R1), Sri. Sourabh Hegde (for R2)

Sri. Kashimasab and Sri. Akabarasab

Sri. Saidusab and Siddappa

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision petition against order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought setting aside of trial court order dated 23.09.2024 and dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation and lacking cause of action.

Filing Reason

Petitioners (defendants) contended that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was barred by limitation.

Previous Decisions

Trial court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 23.09.2024.

Issues

Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action? Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the sale deed was executed in 2019 and the suit filed in 2022 is beyond limitation, and no cause of action arose. Respondents argued that the cause of action arose in 2022 when defendants attempted to dispossess them, and the suit is within limitation.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaint discloses a cause of action as the plaintiffs claim possession and allege disturbance in 2022. The suit is not barred by limitation because the cause of action for injunction arose in 2022, not on the date of the sale deed.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 23.09.2024 which rejects the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint. The court held that the plaint does disclose a cause of action and is not barred by limitation.

Procedural History

The suit OS No.36/2022 was filed by respondents for declaration and injunction. Petitioners filed IA No.V under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. Trial court rejected the application on 23.09.2024. Petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition No.100026/2025 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 15.12.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11(a), Order VII Rule 11(d), Section 151
  • Limitation Act, 1963: Article 58
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Civil Revision Petition in Suit for Declaration and Injunction — Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Denied. Court holds that the plaint discloses a cause of action and is not barred by limitation, as t...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Reduction of Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Due to Exaggerated Disability. Claimant's Alleged 95% Permanent Partial Disablement Disbelieved as Evidence Showed Only Fracture of Left Thigh Bone with 45% Disability.