Dismissed¶103

Sri. Devaraja C v. Sri. K C Ramesh

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2025CRP/348/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:41651; CRP No. 348 of 2025 (IO); Karnataka High Court; V Srishananda; Section 115 CPC revision; Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC; rejection of plaint at threshold; limitation as mixed question of law and fact; time not essence of contract; legal notice; specific performance; agreement to sell dated 16.03.2011; Article 54 Limitation Act; O.S.No.939/2023; Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hosakote; defendants' IA dismissed; liberty to canvass points at trial.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the revision petitioners; liberty reserved for the defendants to canvass all the favourable points in the pending trial; no order as to costs. ¶103

Sri. Devaraja C Vs Sri. K C Ramesh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the revision petitioners; liberty reserved for the defendants to canvass all the favourable points in the pending trial; no order as to costs.

¶103

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendants' application I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.939/2023 ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

The question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be treated as a defect in the suit so as to throw away (reject) the plaint at the threshold.

¶100

Ratio / Principle

Legal notice came to be issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration, and the defendant failed to comply.

¶98

Key takeaways

The three years' time stipulated in the agreement cannot be treated as time being the essence of the contract; that question needs to be thrashed out after full-fledged trial.ratio¶99

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Justice V Srishananda, single member Bench), 17.10.2025, dismissed Civil Revision Petition No.348 of 2025 (IO) filed under Section 115 CPC by Defendant Nos.1 and 3 of O.S.No.939/2023 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote) against the order dated 31.01.2025 dismissing their I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 16.03.2011 over 2 acres 38 guntas in Chokkasandra village, Hoskote Taluk. Holding that the plaintiff had issued legal notice demanding execution of the sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration, that the three-year period fixed in the agreement could not be treated as time being the essence of the contract, and that limitation being a mixed question of law and fact cannot be made a ground to throw away the plaint at the threshold, the Court dismissed the revision petition without costs, reserving liberty to the defendants to canvass all favourable points in the pending trial.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.348 OF 2025 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DEVARAJA C S/O CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶9

SMT.SAKAMMA D/O MUNISHAMAPPA W/O CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH NO.1 AND 2 ARE NOW RESIDING AT CHIKKASANDRA VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562114

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. K C RAMESH S/O MUNIYAPPA @ CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT, KARAMANAGALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT PIN-563114.

¶17

SRI.CHENNARAYAPPA S/O CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT.MEENAKSHI D/O CHENNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶22

SMT.SHILPA W/O C.DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶23

MISS. HARIPRIYA.D D/O C.DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

¶24

MISS.HARSHITHA.D D/O C.DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶25

MASTER. RAKSHITHA.D S/O C.DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 01 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.7 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER SRI.C.DEVARAJU WHO IS D-NO.1.

¶26

SMT.MAMATHA D/O CHENNARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶27

RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 8 ARE R/AT DODDATHIMMASANDRA VILLAGE SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 106

¶28

SRI.A.KRISHNA MURTHY S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.29/3, ATTUR VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562114

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

SRI.ANBUCHOZHAN.M S/O MURTHY.V AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, 12^TH STREET, Z BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU PIN-600040

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SMT. SUNITHA P C, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶35

VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 NOTICE TO R2 TO R-10 DISPENSED WITH)

¶36

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS No.939/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, REJECTING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Heard Sri Narendra Prakash R, Advocate for Sri

¶41

Hanumantharaya D, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Smt. P.C.Sunitha, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶42

Defendant Nos.1 and 3 in O.S No.939/2023 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the

¶47

Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶48

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶49

Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.939/2023 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.03.2011 in respect of the following property hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

¶50

“The land bearing Old Sy.No.78/P2/P1, new Sy.No.78 to an extent 2 acres 38 guntas out of total extent of 177 acres 18 guntas situated at Chokkasandra village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, and the same is bounded on:

¶51

East by : Mothakadhahalli Border, West by: Block No.3 Sakamma Property, North by: Rajappa and Paparaj property, South by: Chikkerappa Property.”

¶52

Defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto inter alia contending that the suit is barred by time and filed an

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶56

The application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed written objections.

¶57

The learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties by the impugned order dismissed the application filed by the defendants inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.11 to 18, as under:

¶58

“11. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied the following citations;

¶59

i) The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 12 SCC 18 between Saradamani Kandappan V/s Rajalakshmi & Ors.

¶60

ii) The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2022) 2 SCC 382 between Welspun Specialty Solutions Ltd. V/s Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,

¶61

12. The counsel for the defendants has produced the following citations:

¶62

(i) The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 between Dahiben V/s Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Ors.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

(ii) The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 8 SCC 390 between Fatehji & Company & Anr. V/s L.M.Nagpal & Ors.

¶67

(iii) The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 15 SCC 654 between Venkatanatha Chary V/s Nalla Raji Reddy.

¶68

iv) The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 1 SCC 625 between Virgo Industries (Eng.) Pvt. Ltd., V/s Venturetech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

¶69

v) The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 2 SCC 428 between R.K.Parvatharaj Gupta V/s K.C.Jayadeva Reddy.

¶70

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly held that court has to find whether plaint discloses real cause of action or illusory cause of action created by clever drafting- court must be vigilant against camouflage or suppression and if suit found to be vexatious and an abuse of process of court, it should exercise its drastic power under Rule 11 to reject the plaint.

¶71

13. Further, in order to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the court has to consider the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with plaint. Further, it is immaterial to consider the allegations made in the written statement.

¶72

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

14. Further, the counsel for the plaintiff argued that the application filed by the defendants is not maintainable. As per sale agreement the defendants have to provide necessary documents such as revenue sketch and documents for legal opinion and permission from the concerned authority for sale of the suit schedule property. But, till this date, the defendants have not come forward to execute the sale deed by furnishing all the necessary documents as stated in the sale agreement.

¶76

15. Further, though the plaintiff has demanded the defendants for execution of sale deed through oral or by issuing legal notice, they have failed to perform their part of contract. Hence, the limitation of 3 years does not arise and not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, prays to reject the application with costs.

¶77

16. Here in this case the defendants except the denial they have not made out any reasonable grounds to show that this suit is no having any cause of action and the same is barred by limitation. As per Article 54 of Limitation Act when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused by the other party, the suit has to be filed within 3 years.

¶78

17. Here in this case, in the said alleged agreement to sale the time was fixed for performance of contract subject to the production of survey sketch and documents for legal opinion. Further, the defendants agreed that after obtaining permission from the government and after

¶79

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

fixing haddu basthu stones, they will execute the sale deed.

¶83

18. Further, in the said agreement at page 3, the defendants agreed that

¶84

“ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ C£ÀÄªÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀªÉð ¸ÉÌZï ªÀiÁr¹ ºÀzÀÄÝ §¸ÀÄÛ PÀ®ÄèUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁQ¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ jf¸ÀÖgï UÉ DUÀvÀPÀÌ °ÃUÀ¯ïUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀgÉzÁUÀ ¤ªÀÄUÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÃ½zÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀªÀjUÁUÀ° G½PÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä M¦àgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ….

¶85

¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇÃr ªÀiÁr¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀéAvÀ £ÀªÀÄä Rað¤AzÀ ¥ÀjºÀj¹ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ."

¶86

It clearly goes to show that the defendants have agreed to sale deed by obtaining permission from the government and also after making phodi and haddu basthu of the suit property along with sketch and other legal opinion documents. At this stage, the defendants have not produced any material documents to show that the said property was phoded and they have obtained permission from the concerned government with respect to the sale of suit property and also they have provided a survey sketch for registration of the sale deed.”

¶87

Being aggrieved by the same, the revision

¶88

petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 3 are before this court in this revision petition.

¶89

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Sri Narendra Prakash, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contented that, per se suit is barred by limitation having regard to the date of agreement and other material facts pleaded in the application and affidavit filed in support of the application and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration.

¶92

Per contra , Smt.P.C.Sunitha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, supports the impugned order by contending that legal notice came to be issued by the plaintiff which was not complied by the defendants and cause of action is bundle of facts and the question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact having regard to the real controversy between the parties and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶93

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material learned record meticulously.

¶94

On such perusal of the material on record, the written statement contentions are taken note of by the learned Trial

¶95

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41651 CRP No. 348 of 2025

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

Judge apart from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 as referred to supra.

¶98

Further, legal notice came to be issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration

¶99

The defendant failed to do so and the three years time stipulated in the agreement cannot be treated as the time which is the essence of the contract having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case which needs to be thrashed out after full-fledged trial.

¶100

Further, question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be treated as a defect in the suit so as to throw away the plaint at the threshold.

¶101