Karnataka HC Dismisses Daughter’s Revision Against Plaint Strike-Out As Not Maintainable, Gives 4 Weeks To Seek Proper Remedy

The petitioner challenged an order dated 26 September 2026 in O.S. No. 2672 of 2020, by which the trial court allowed I.A. No. 5, filed under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

The High Court Office objected to the maintainability of the revision petition under Section 115 CPC because the trial court had allowed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

The petition invoked Section 115 CPC, which provides for the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction in specified circumstances.

The challenged trial-court order concerned an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The Court’s stated basis for disposing of the petition was the Office objection that a revision under Section 115 CPC was not maintainable because the trial court had allowed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

It upheld that objection and dismissed the petition without examining the merits of the trial court’s order or elaborating on the governing maintainability principle

It granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; any pending interlocutory applications were closed