Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA
P. Dayananda Pai, S/o Late Narasimha Pai – Appellant
Versus
N. Ravindranath Kamath, S/O Late N. Venkatesh Kamath – Respondent
ORDER :
V. Srishananda, J.
Heard Sri.Chandan K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.G.S.Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Defendant in O.S.No.7719/2022 is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the order passed in the said suit on I.A.No.3 rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short).
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. Respondent/plaintiff being the practicing Advocate, said to have rendered professional services to the revision petitioner/defendant. In respect of such professional services, in the year 2015, a invoice was raised by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.27,50,000/-.
3.2. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- is paid towards the said invoice and balance sum of Rs.15,50,000/- stood unpaid.
3.3. Plaintiff also detailed out as to what made him to keep quite when the entire amount was not paid as per the invoice amount in paragraph Nos.4 to 8 of the plaint which reads as under :
“4. The Plaintiff came to know through the newspaper publication in Times of India dated
The court emphasized that issues of fact relating to a settlement and limitation must be adjudicated at trial rather than through a dismissive application of procedural rules.
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the averments in the plaint to determine whether it discloses a cause of action and whether the suit is barred by limitation.
The court established that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a full trial to resolve, rather than dismissal at the application stage.
The court affirmed that a plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses a cause of action and emphasized that authorized representatives can validly file affidavits supporting pl....
The limitation for cancellation suits begins from the time the plaintiff becomes aware of the grounds for cancellation, not from the date of the instrument's execution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
