IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 7694 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD.

A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING AND A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC COMPLEX SHANTHINAGAR K H ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MS. HARINAXI T.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI NISHANTH A.V, ADV.)

AND:

MICRONOVA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED Digitally A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER signed by THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 NANDINI M S REGISTERED OFFICE HAVING ITS Location:

HIGH COURT REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.43 OF WAT STREET, BASAVANAGUDI KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RAJASHREE B, ADV.)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 4 IN COM OS NO. 651/2023 BY THE HONBLE LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-85), VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. Defendant is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.03.2024 passed on IA No.IV in Commercial O.S.No. 651 of 2023 by the Court of LXXXIV Addl.

City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Respondent herein has filed Commercial O.S.No.651 of 2023 before the jurisdictional commercial Court, Bengaluru against the petitioner herein with a prayer to direct the defendant to pay an amount of ₹.11,65,074/- with interest. In the said suit, the defendant / petitioner herein has entered appearance and has filed his written statement denying the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant to reject the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit was barred by limitation. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objection. The trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA No.IV filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner / defendant is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that plaint averments itself would go to show that suit is barred by limitation. There was no cause of action for filing the suit. The trial court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in rejecting the I.A.No.IV. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND OTHERS V. SHRIMANTH CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER - (2024) 15 SCC 675 and submits that when it is evident from the plaint averments that suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, plaint needs to be rejected.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that as per the averments found in the plaint, the suit is not barred by limitation. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only the plaint averments needs to be considered. It is trite that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which is required to be decided based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The Trial Court was therefore justified in rejecting the application. He submits that suit is at the stage of cross-examination of PW1 and the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, that suit in Com.O.S.No.651 of 2023 is fil