Reserved on : 24.09.2025 Pronounced on : 25.10.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.230 OF 2025 (IO)

BETWEEN:

1 . SRI N. GANGADHAR S/O. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2 . SRI SURYA PRASAD S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 3 . SMT. ADHILAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE AMR REDDY, REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.2 ALL ARE R/AT NO.1228, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, YASHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI VINAYA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SMT. USHA B., W/O.LATE BHADRACHALAPATHI RAO AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT 36/3, VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BANGALURU - 560 004.

AND ALSO R/AT AT NO.45, 1^ST CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, ANJANEYANAGAR, B.S.K. 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085

2 . M/S. VENKATESHWARA ENGINEERING WORKS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI C.V. SOMASHEKAR HAVING REGISTRED OFFICE AT NO.162/2, TANK BUND ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

3 . THE SUB-REGISTRAR, BASAVANAGUDI, GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD, GANDHI BAZAAR, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004, KARNATAKA.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HIRAN KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

SRI SESHU V., HCGP FOR R3)

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.6654/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 12^TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11-02-2025 ON IA NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (a) AND (d) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 AND ALLOW IA NO.4 BY ALLOWING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITH COSTS.

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 are at the doors of this Court calling in question rejection of an application, I.A.No.4 filed by them under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC seeking rejection of plaint, on the score that the cause that is sought to be projected before the Court is barred by limitation.

2. Heard Sri P. Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Hiran Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri V. Seshu, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

3.1. Before embarking upon considering of the issue in the lis, I deem it appropriate to notice the protagonists involved. The 1^st respondent is the plaintiff; petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are defendants 1, 2 and 3 and respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 4 and 5. The schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff’s father-in-law, one Munnoji Rao on 29-12-1949 through a registered sale deed. The said property was then acquired by the husband of 1^st respondent/plaintiff after the death of Munnoji Rao which also becomes the subject matter of partition deed. On 23-01-1995, the husband of the plaintiff is said to have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1^st defendant. Pursuant to execution of General Power of Attorney, on 27-07-2004, the 1^st defendant is allegedly executed a registered agreement of sale seeking to sell the schedule property in favour of the 3^rd petitioner/defendant No.3’s late husband one A.M.R. Reddy. Pursuant to agreement of sale so registered on 27-07-2004, two sale deeds also come to be executed on 02-04-2005 by the 2^nd petitioner in favour of A.M.R.

Reddy. The said A.M.R. Reddy then enters into an agreement of sale conveying the schedule property in favour of the 2^nd defendant.

3.2. After the aforesaid events, the husband of the plaintiff dies. The plaintiff contends that she became aware of the fraud played in the purported execution of agreements of sale and registered sale deeds when she obtained encumbrance certificate in respect of the schedule property. On the aforesaid premise, she institutes the subject suit in O.S.No.6654 of 2024 seeking the relief of declaration and