Dismissed¶¶48

N C Shankarappa v. H v Nanjundaswamy

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2025CRP/378/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (single Bench, V Srishananda J), CRP No. 378 of 2025, decided 17.10.2025. Defendants' revision against rejection-application failure dismissed. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w S.151 CPC refused: limitation plea and loan-agreement-versus-agreement-to-sell dispute are trial issues, not grounds for threshhold rejection; defendants left free to prove defence at trial in O.S.No.66/2024 (specific performance of agreement dated 20.04.2015, Nanjangud court). No precedent discussed; no costs or quantum.

What did the court decide?

The question of limitation pleaded by the defendants to throw away the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC does not arise, because whether the suit agreement is an agreement to sell or a loan agreement must be considered only after a full-fledged trial.

N C Shankarappa Vs H v Nanjundaswamy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41650 CRP No. 378 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.378 OF 2025 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

N C SHANKARAPPA SON OF LATE CHENNAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION :AGRICULTURE RESIDING AT NAGANAPURA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD -571301 MYSURU DISTRICT

¶9

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

Y.S.NAGALAMBIKA WIFE OF N.C.SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION : HOUSEWIFE RESIDING AT NAGANAPURA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD -571301 MYSURU DISTRICT

¶11

VINUTHA N.S. DAUGHTER OF N.C.SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION : ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT NAGANAPURA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD -571301 MYSURU DISTRICT

¶12

VIJAYASHANKAR N.S. SON OF N.C.SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:41650 CRP No. 378 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

OCCUPATION : STUDENT RESIDING AT NAGANAPURA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD -571301 MYSURU DISTRICT

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI N.K.KANTHARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

H V NANJUNDASWAMY SON OF LATE B.VEERABADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,, OCCUPATION :RESIDING AT HADYA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD -571301 MYSURU DISTRICT

¶21

H.N.KIRAN SON OF H.V.NANJUNDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCCUPATION RESIDING AT HADYA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD -571301 MYSURU DISTRICT

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI N.NANJUNDASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A NO.II IN OS.NO.66/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:41650 CRP No. 378 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Heard Sri N.K.Kantharaju, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri N.Nanjunda Swamy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

Present Revision Petition is filed by the defendants challenging the rejection of I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S No.66/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjanagudu.

¶32

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

¶33

A suit came to be filed by the respondents herein in O.S No.66/2024 for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 20.04.2015.

¶34

It is contented in the plaint that defendants failed to execute the sale deed though plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his portion of the contract and legal notice also came to be issued.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41650 CRP No. 378 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Defendants, pursuant to the suit summons entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the very agreement itself.

¶38

According to the defendants, the transaction involved in the sale agreement is that of a loan agreement. Defendants also filed an application to reject the suit on the said ground.

¶39

When that is so, question of limitation as is pleaded by the defendants to throw away the plaint at the threshold by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure would not arise at all, inasmuch as whether suit agreement is agreement to sell or loan agreement needs to be considered after full-fledged trial.

¶40