Smt K Rajeshwari Vs Sri B Somashekhar

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 450 OF 2026 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. K. RAJESHWARI, W/O H.M. CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O ARALAKERE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUT TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. AND ALSO, R/AT #1018, 22^ND CROSS, V.V. NAGARA, MANDYA CITY – 571 401

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI SR. COUNSEL FOR

¶11

SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. B SOMASHEKHAR S/O BACHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1192, 8^TH MAIN, 2^ND PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 78.

¶15

SRI S.N. RAJESHEKHAR RAJU, S/O S.M. NAARASARAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.108, PADMASHREE PRESENCE, 17^TH CROSS, 21^ST MAIN, J.P.NAGAR, 5^TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 78.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. S. VASU, S/O VENKATANARASIMHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.528, 2^ND MAIN, M.S RAMAIAH CITY, 7^TH PHASE, J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 78.

¶20

SRI. C NAGESH, S/O LATE CHANNAMAKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.3064, 5^TH MAIN, KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 78.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.04.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.II IN OS NO.85/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA., DISMISSING THE IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A) AND (D) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.85/2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court.

¶30

The respondent herein has filed O.S.No.85/2024 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 01.10.2015. In that, the defendant has filed I.A.No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to reject the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the registered sale agreement is dated 01.10.2015. The time fixed for performance of the contract is 6 months from the date of the registered sale agreement dated 01.10.2015, and the agreement falls under Article 54(1) of the Limitation Act. The time fixed for performance of the contract is 6 months from the date of the agreement, i.e., 01.10.2015. Accordingly, the time for performance of the contract begins on 01.04.2016 and ends on 31.03.2019. However, the plaintiffs have filed the suit on 27.09.2024, i.e., after the lapse of nearly 5 years 6 months

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

from the date of the agreement. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is not sustainable and maintainable under law, and the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff, knowing fully well, has suppressed the said fact of limitation by clever drafting of the plaint. Hence, the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has tried to mislead the Court to grant a favourable order. As the suit is barred by limitation, there is no cause of action for the suit, and the cause of action given is illusory, the plaint is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

The plaintiff has filed his objections and contended that the I.A. is not maintainable. The defendant has sworn to a false affidavit. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant, being in a dominant position, has committed fraud to gain undue advantage and defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. The defendant has admitted the due execution of the registered sale agreement dated 01.10.2015 and has intentionally suppressed the acts to be performed by her as per the covenants of the agreement of sale. Hence, the defendant cannot object to the plaintiffs exercising their right of specific performance. The limitation has not at all commenced to run against the

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

plaintiffs, and in view of the same, the suit is very well maintained, and the issue of limitation cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

¶40

The trial Court, by the impugned order, had dismissed I.A.No.2. While dismissing the application, the trial Court observed that, as per the agreement of sale, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.25,00,000/-, and accordingly, the plaintiffs and the defendant had entered into a registered sale agreement dated 01.10.2015. The defendant had received an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, had agreed to receive the balance sale consideration at the time of execution of the sale deed, and had also agreed to tender all the required and relevant documents with respect to the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs have also contended that the defendants had agreed not to come forward to execute the sale deed by furnishing the relevant documents and, on the other hand, had issued a legal notice. The plaintiff had replied to the same, and despite the same, the defendant has not come forward to execute the sale deed. It is the case that the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and hence have filed the suit.

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The trial Court observed that the cause of action for filing the suit is disclosed, the plaintiffs have properly valued the plaint, and there is no defect in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court further observed that the defendant has not provided any sufficient grounds to reject the plaint. When it comes to the issue of limitation, the trial Court considered the judgments relied on by the defendant and observed that those judgments do not apply to the facts of the case. The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and has to be considered on the merits of the case and cannot be considered at the stage of the proceedings. The trial Court observed that on perusal of the agreement, there is a condition cast upon the defendant to make a proper survey, fix the boundary in respect of the schedule property, obtain a sketch from the competent authority, and deliver all the original title deeds. In light of the same, though the defendant has contended that the suit is barred by limitation and sought the rejection of the plaint, she has not stated anything with regard to compliance of the conditions mentioned in the sale agreement. The defendant has not pleaded that the survey has been conducted, the boundary in respect of the schedule

¶44

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

property is fixed, she has obtained a sketch from the competent authority, and she is ready to deliver all the original title deeds. Thus, in the absence of the same, the defendant cannot be permitted to contend that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant has issued a legal notice dated 25.11.2022, cancelled the sale agreement, and forfeited the advance amount. Hence, the sale agreement is not in existence, and hence the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court observed that the defendant's contentions are facts to be decided on the merits of the case and that the said contention has to be taken in the written statement. Hence, the defendant cannot be permitted to take the said contention in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC and accordingly, dismissed the I.A.No.II.

¶47

Learned Senior counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit is miserably barred by limitation. The execution of the sale agreement is not a contingent one, and there are no such clauses. Clause 3 of the agreement clearly states that both parties have agreed to complete the sale transaction within 6 months from the date of the agreement. The agreement of sale is dated 01.10.2015,

¶48

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

and the suit is filed on 27.09.2024, and the same is barred by limitation. It is submitted that Article 54 of the Limitation Act prescribes limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement. As per the same, ‘whenever a date fixed for performance of the contract, a period of 3 years runs from the date fixed for the performance.’ As such, the suit is barred by limitation, and this aspect was not considered by the trial Court. It is submitted that the remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold without proceeding to record evidence and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if the court is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in the provision.

¶51

It is submitted that the underlying object of Order VII Rule 11(a) is that if, in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings and would put an end to sham litigation so that judicial time is not wasted. It is submitted that this is a case where the trial Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction

¶52

9 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

vested in it to curb unnecessary litigation. It is submitted that the trial Court has wrongly concluded that there is a condition cast upon the defendant to make a proper survey, fix the boundary in respect of the property, obtain a sketch from the competent authority, and deliver all the original title deeds, and that the Court has failed to consider clause 3.

¶56

Learned Senior counsel has relied on the judgment of

¶57

the Apex Court in case of Usha Devi and Others Vs. Ram Kumar Singh and Others¹ . He relied on paragraph No.8 which reads thus:

¶58

“8. We need not enter into the other issues as we are convinced that the suit was barred by limitation. The limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for instituting a suit for specific performance of a contract would be three years from the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is reproduced hereunder:

¶59

“ *** 54. For Specific Three The date fixed for the performance of Years performance, or, if no a contract date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”

¶60

9. Coming to the facts of the present case, we find that in the agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement. The period of one month would expire on 16.01.1990,

¶61

1 2024 INSC 599

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

and once there is a specific date fixed for performance, the limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993. The Trial Court thus held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed in September 1993.

¶66

10. The First Appellate Court and the High Court went on the consideration that the agreement further recorded that this agreement would remain valid for a period of five years from today’s date i.e. date of the execution of the agreement to sell. Placing reliance on this clause, in our considered opinion, is totally irrelevant. The performance was to take place within one month. The validity of the agreement is something different and does not change the date of performance. What was the reason for incorporating this clause of validating the agreement for five years is not spelled out in the agreement, but in any case, it does not change the date fixed for the performance.

¶67

11. As such, the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed. Therefore, we have not entered into the other issues regarding the agreement to sell being valid or invalid.”

¶68

Relying on this judgment, it is submitted that the Apex Court has held that when there is a condition of this nature, Article 54 of the Limitation Act will apply and the suit has to be brought within 3 months from the date of the cause of action. On the ground of limitation, the application was dismissed. It is submitted that the judgment will squarely apply to the facts of this case.

¶69

Having heard the learned Senior counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The suit is filed seeking specific performance of an

¶70

11 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

agreement of sale dated 01.10.2015. As per clause 3 of the said agreement, both parties have agreed to complete the sale transaction within 6 months from the date of the agreement. Based on this, the learned Senior counsel submits that the contract contains a clause stating that the parties have to complete the sale transaction within 6 months. As such, Article 54 of the Limitation Act will apply, and limitation will start after the expiry of 6 months. This Court has gone through the other clauses of the agreement. Clause 4 states that ‘the vendor shall make out and convey a good, marketable and subsisting rights and title in respect of the schedule property to the purchasers or in favour of the person/nominee(s) as required by the purchasers. The sale of the schedule property by the vendor to the purchasers shall be free from encumbrances or charges of any kind and as per the assurances held out supra’. Clause 7 states that ‘the vendor has agreed to deliver all the original title deeds, which are needed for the execution of the sale deed of the schedule property to the purchasers on the date of registration of the sale deed in respect of the scheduled property’.

¶74

12 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:31972 CRP No. 450 of 2026

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

It is the submission of the learned Senior counsel that it is not a contingent contract and that the Court has not properly examined the agreement of sale. This Court is unable to appreciate the submission made by the learned Senior counsel. The agreement has to be looked at as a whole, and we cannot look at a particular clause in the agreement in isolation. Admittedly, it is the case of the plaintiff that this property is mortgaged to Bramhadevarahalli Branch and that the documents are with the bank, and this fact is suppressed by the defendant. In this regard, exchange of notices had taken place. Whether the defendant is in a position to execute the documents? Whether time is the essence of the contract? Whether Article 54 of the Limitation Act will apply to the facts of this case? All these aspects are mixed questions of fact and law. The Court cannot consider the same at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The trial Court, considering all the judgments in detail, had rightly dismissed the application. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, and that case is not at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. In that view of

¶78