Dismissed

Sri. K. Prasad v. Sri. C. N. Ramesh

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2023CRP/714/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged the trial court's order rejecting a plea to strike out a plaint for limitation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the suit filed in 2018 was within the limitation period after the demand was made in 2016.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application to strike out the plaint on limitation grounds.

Sri. K. Prasad Vs Sri. C. N. Ramesh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:46836 CRP No. 714 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 714 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI K. PRASAD S/O. K. RAMANJANEYALU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT #25, 1ST FLOOR 4TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI NATARAJA H.T., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI C.N. RAMESH S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶15

SRI C.N. CHANDRASHEKART S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

BOTH ARE R/AT CHINTAL MADIVAL VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.

¶17

SRI J. MANJUNATH REDDY S/O. JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:46836 CRP No. 714 of 2023

¶20

ADIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.

¶21

SMT. H.N. MANJULA D/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT B. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI LOKESH B., ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.09.2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO.7185/2017 BY THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-43) IN DISMISSING THE I.A.-VII, FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (IN SHORT CPC), CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has challenged an order dated

¶28

16.09.2023 passed by the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S. No.7185/2017, by which an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was rejected.

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46836 CRP No. 714 of 2023

¶30

The suit in O.S.No.7185/2017 was filed for

¶31

recovery of a sum of Rs.5,28,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Twenty Eight Lakhs only) along with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the suit. The plaintiffs claimed that on the request of the defendant, they advanced a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore only) which was secured by an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the property situated in Jayanagara, Bangalore. The plaintiffs claimed that the mortgage was duly registered and a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- was paid to the defendant, who agreed to repay it along with interest at the rate 24% per annum within two years six months ending on 03.01.2017. The plaintiffs claimed that after the time agreed for repayment of the amount expired, the defendant did not keep up his promise and did not repay the amount along with interest. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,28,00,000/-.

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46836 CRP No. 714 of 2023

¶33

The defendant entered appearance and filed his

¶34

written statement contending that a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- was not paid to him. He also contended that a simple suit for recovery of money was not maintainable and it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to file a suit as provided under Order 34 Rule 5 of CPC to proceed against the mortgaged property.

¶35

The defendant also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint primarily contending that the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the mortgage, in view of Article 26 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and since the same was not done within 3 years, the suit was liable to be rejected as barred by law of limitation. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs who claimed that the defendant was expected to repay the money by 03.01.2017 while the suit is filed on 24.10.2018 and therefore, the suit is well within time. The trial Court in terms of the impugned order rejected the application on

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46836 CRP No. 714 of 2023

¶37

the ground that the suit is filed within the time prescribed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has filed this revision petition.

¶38

Learned counsel for the defendant invited the

¶39

attention of the Court to the averments of the plaint and contended that admittedly, a mortgage deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore it was mandatory for them to file a suit for recovery of the mortgage money by proceeding against the property which is mortgaged and cannot seek for personal decree of recovery of money from the defendant. He submitted that the time prescribed for obtaining the personal decree for recovery has expired and hence, suit for recovery of money based on mortgage is barred by law of limitation.

¶40

A perusal of the plaint discloses that a sum of

¶41

Rs.3,00,00,000/- was liable to be paid along with interest on or before 03.01.2017. When the money is paid under an agreement, the time for recovery of the money runs from the date the demand is made.

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46836 CRP No. 714 of 2023

¶43

7. In the present case, the plaintiffs have claimed

¶44

that soon after the time prescribed for refund of the amount expired, they demanded the defendant to repay the amount, which he did not repay. Therefore, the suit filed in the year 2018 was well within limitation and the same cannot be rejected as barred by the law of limitation.

¶45

There is no error committed by the trial Court in

¶46

rejecting the application filed by the defendant warranting interference by this Court.

¶47

Hence, this petition lacks merit and is

¶48

dismissed .

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. K. Prasad v. Sri. C. N. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. Prasad v. Sri. C. N. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Manjunath B S Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Johnson a @ John Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Shashikanth M N @ Shammi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mylarappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

K N Bhavya Vs the State of Karnataka

Jahangeer Ulla Khan Vs State by Kadugondana Halli Ps