Dismissed¶37

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Smt M. Nagalakshmi

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2025WP/25762/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: limitation — Article 137, Limitation Act 1963 — Section 16(3), Indian Telegraph Act — Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — rejection of petition on limitation ground — Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma (1976) 4 SCC 634 — W.P. No. 25817/2025 — Misc. No. 66/2023 — IA No.2 — IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District — Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd — GM-KEB — writ petition dismissed following earlier decision; limitation bar to be established through evidence, rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC not appropriate.

What did the court decide?

The present writ petition raises contentions similar to those urged by the very same petitioner in W.P.no.25817/2025 and is therefore covered by the decision rendered therein. ¶35

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Smt M… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Original Petition (Misc No.66/2023) filed by the respondents under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act is barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and liable to be dismissed. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Adopting the observation made in W.P.no.25817/2025 (carried into this order as the clarification): whether the respondent's petition is barred by limitation would require the petitioner to lead evidence, and rejection of the petition on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC would not be appropriate.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition raises contentions similar to those urged by the very same petitioner in W.P.no.25817/2025 and is therefore covered by the decision rendered therein.

¶35

Key takeaways

Following the order passed in W.P.no.25817/2025, this writ petition is dismissed with the clarification made therein.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-KEB) — Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. M. Nagalakshmi Parlattaya & Ors. — Challenge to rejection of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC application on limitation grounds — Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 24.02.2025 of the IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in Misc. No.66/2023 (Original Petition under S.16(3), Indian Telegraph Act), whereby its IA No.2 seeking rejection of the Original Petition as barred by limitation under Art.137, Limitation Act 1963 (relying on Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, (1976) 4 SCC 634) was rejected — Court found the contentions similar to those urged by the same petitioner in W.P.No.25817/2025, wherein the like writ petition stood dismissed with the observation that the limitation question would require the petitioner to lead evidence and that rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC would not be appropriate — Following that order, the present writ petition is dismissed with the same clarification.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:36803 WP No. 25762 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 25762 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE, REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT SAUDAMINI PLOT NO. 2, SECTOR 29, GURGAON-122001, HARYANA AND HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT 400/220 KV GIS SUB STATION, NEAR RTO TEST TRACK, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064. REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SMT JAYASREE, W/O R SURESH NAIR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SANDHYA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI TAJI GEORGE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI 1. SMT M. NAGALAKSHMI PARLATTAYA S W/O (LATE) N.M. NAGARAJ. Location: High AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, Court of Karnataka R/A NO. 833. GANESH NIVAS, 8^TH A CROSS, CHAMUNDIPURAM, OPP. MATHRUSHREE VIDHYANIKETHAN, LAGGERE, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560058.

¶13

SRI N. PURUSHOTHAMAN SON (LATE) N.M. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.833 GANESH NIVAS, 8^TH A CROSS, CHAMONDPURAM OPP MATHRUSHREE VIDHYANIKETHAN, LAGGERE, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36803 WP No. 25762 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560058.

¶17

SMT MEENA BHASKARAN D/O (LATE) N.M. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. R/A NO.103, 8^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, BEHIND RT NAGAR POLICE STATION, HMT LAYOUT BANGALORE NORTH. BANGALORE-560054.

¶18

SRI RAMU N.M S/O LATE N.M. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. R/A NO.833, GANESH NIVAS, 1^ST MAIN 8^TH CROSS, OPP. MATHRUSHREE VIDHYANIKETHANA SCHOOL, CHAMUNDESHWARINAGAR, LAGGERE, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 058.

¶19

SMT. R. JAYASHREE W/O R. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A MAHIMA NILAYA, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 073.

¶20

SRI. H.C RAJAGOPAL S/O LATE H.D CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO.497, BHANIK NILAYA, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 073.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24^TH OF FEBRUARY 2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IX ADDI. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU DISTRICT ON IA NO.2 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO. MISC NO.66 OF 2023 FILED UNDER SECTION 16(3) OF THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT. B) HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE ORIGINAL PETITION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, C) DIRECT THE LEARNED IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36803 WP No. 25762 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU DISTRICT TO REJECT THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This writ petition is filed challenging order dated 24.02.2025 passed by IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Mis.no.66/2023, for rejecting application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,( for short ' CPC '), on ground of being barred by limitation by relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma , reported in (1976) 4 SCC 634 .

¶30

It is seen that similar contentions are urged by very same petitioner in W.P.no.25817/2025 has been considered and writ petition is dismissed with certain observation that whether petition filed by respondent is barred by limitation would require petitioner to lead evidence and rejection of petition on application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:36803 WP No. 25762 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

would not be appropriate. Present writ petition would be similar

¶35

to said writ petition and therefore, covered by said decision.

¶36