CRP/766/2026 of SRI A R RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs SMT MEGALA SIVAPRAKASH @ MEGALA on 19 September 2026

ORDER

DATED 27.07.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.3891/2025 BY THE XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-36) & ETC.

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.3891/2025 by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the petitioners/defendant Nos.3 and 5 are before this Court.

2. The respondent No.1 herein, who is the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.3891/2025 seeking partition and declaration that certain registered documents are not binding on the plaintiff. In the suit, defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.5 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on two grounds. One is that there is no cause of action, and the other is that the suit is barred by limitation. All the documents that are questioned are beyond 3 years' limitation as contained in Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The suit was dismissed by the impugned order.

3. While dismissing the application, the trial Court had considered the respective contentions of the parties and the

HC-KAR

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raghawendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna1. The trial Court held that the judgments are not applicable. Ultimately, the trial Court gave a finding that the knowledge of the plaintiff is material and at the time of rejection of the plaint, only the plaint and the documents filed with the plaint are material. Therefore, at the outset, the plaint is not liable to be rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant Nos. 3 and 5 submits that when defendant No. 3 raised the ground with regard to limitation as well as cause of action, the trial Court failed to give any independent finding. Further, he submits that there is no dispute about the fact that while rejecting the plaint, only the plaint and the documents have to be looked into. But unfortunately, the court has not even looked into the plaint or the documents filed in support of it, and the impugned order needs to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/ plaintiff submits that, as per the application filed by defendant No. 3, if the plaint has to be rejected, it can be rejected as a 1 AIR 2019 SC 1430

HC-KAR

whole, partial rejection is not permissible. Hence, the trial Court rightly rejected the application, and there are no grounds to interfere.

6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. When an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC raising the grounds of cause of action and limitation, the trial Court ought to have given specific findings on the issues raised, rather than merely discussing the contentions and the judgments. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order is bereft of reasons and cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order:

ORDER

i. The order dated 27.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.3891/2025 by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court.

ii. The trial Court shall consider I.A.No.5 based on the grounds raised by the petitioners and shall pass orders in accordance with law.

HC-KAR

iii. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36