IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 102 OF 2024 (IO)

BETWEEN:

MRS. VISHALAKSHI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O SREEKANTH HEGDE, R/O: NO. 675/9, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, SHREYAS COLONY, J.P. NAGAR, 7^TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

… PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKSHAYA B.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. SUNDER RAJAN M.K., AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O M.N. KRISHNASWAMY R/O: NO.4, 15^TH CROSS, 100 FT, RING ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, 5^TH PHASE, OPP. FEDEX COURIERS, BENGALURU-560 078.

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR … RESPONDENT B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR C KA O R U N R A T T O A F KA (BY SRI. KRISHNA S. VYAS, ADVOCATE)

DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:28 +0530 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04, 2024, PASSED BY THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT (CCH-28) IN I.A. NO.II FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO.5557/2021 AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE SAID I.A.NO.II AND AWARD COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS (THROUGH VC AT DHARWAD BENCH), THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner–defendant, in this civil revision petition, challenges the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-28) in I.A. No. II in O.S. No. 5557/2017, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was rejected. The petitioner seeks rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

1.1. The petitioner–defendant seeks the rejection of the plaint in a suit instituted for the recovery of monies allegedly invested by the plaintiff in an “Employee Benefit Scheme” upon solicitation by the defendant. The petitioner contends that the suit is based on a time-barred debt and a dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant in respect thereof. It is the specific contention of the petitioner–defendant that the issuance of a cheque in relation to a time-barred debt does not revive the expired period of limitation for the purpose of a suit for the recovery of amounts allegedly received by the defendant for the plaintiff’s use.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of INR 48,00,000 along with interest at

12% per annum, amounting to INR 82,56,000, among other reliefs.

3. In the plaint, the plaintiff averred that the defendant had solicited him to invest in a scheme called the “Employee Benefit Scheme.” Pursuant to this solicitation, the plaintiff transferred an amount of ₹48,00,000 to the defendant’s bank account. Subsequently, the plaintiff, upon receiving reliable information, learned that the defendant had solicited money from several other individuals under the pretext of investing in a knowingly fraudulent scheme, thereby cheating them.

4. The plaintiff lodged a criminal complaint against the defendant for offences punishable under Sections 34, 120B, 409, 418, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging criminal breach of trust. After an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for offences related to criminal breach of trust. Thereafter, in April 2019, the defendant approached the plaintiff, requesting him to withdraw the criminal complaint and assuring him that she would repay the amount along with interest. In furtherance of this assurance, the defendant issued a cheque dated 13.06.2019 for INR 50,00,000/-

5. The defendant entered an appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the alleged amount was paid by the plaintiff in October 2015. The issuance of the cheque dated 13.06.2019, she argued, would not bring the suit within the limitation period, as the defendant had not acknowledged the time- barred debt as required under Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Co