IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.449 OF 2024 (IO)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT INDRAMMA

W/O BASAVARAJAIAH

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

2. SRI K BASVARAJAIAH

S/O KODIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 3. SMT SHASHIKALA B

D/O BASAVARAJAIAH

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

4. SRI SHASHIDHARA B

S/O BASAVARAJAIAH

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

Digitally ALL ARE R/O VINAYAKA NAGARA

signed by SONDEKOPPA ROAD

MALATESH KASABA HOBLI,

K C

NELAMANGALA TALUK

Location: BANGALORE RURAL - 562130

HIGH

…PETITIONERS

COURT OF

(BY SRI VEERENDRA R PATIL, ADVOCATE)

KARNATAKA

AND:

SRI SRINIVAS GOVINDAIAH

S/O T GOVIDAIAH

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

R/AT NO.16, “RAJBHOOMI” 1^ST STAGE

2^ND MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS

KIRLOSKAR COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR - 560 079 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.654/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANALA, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d)

OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Veerendra R Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appears for the respondent.

2. Defendants in O.S.No.654/2009 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1. A suit for Specific enforcement of the contract of agreement to sell dated 10.12.2012 came to be filed by the respondent plaintiff.

4. It is contented that pursuant to the suit summons defendants entered their appearance and denied the plaint averments and also contented that suit is barred by limitation and filed in application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the suit as it is per se time barred.

5. Learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the application filed by the defendants by way of impugned order.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision petition is filed by the defendants on the following grounds:

 It is submitted that the learned Judge of the Court below has not at all applied his mind to the facts of the case. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

 On 30.03.2024 trail court rejected the Application Filed by the Petitioners under order 7 Rule 11(d) r/w section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure wherein referring the agreement of sale Dated:28.12.2015 and all facts related in respect of OS No:264/2021, only cause title belong to OS No:654/2019.

 Agreement of sale Dated: 10.12.2012 having period of 9 months validity. Limitation run from the date of expire of 9 months (run from 10.09.2013 to

10.09.2016 three years).

 Article 54 of Limitation Act clearly stated (Part-II-

Suit Relating to contracts) suit for specific performance has to be filed within the three years from the date fixed for the performance. Suit has to be filed on or before 10.09.2016(within the three years from the date of expire of date fixed). However suit was filed on 07.11.2019 after laps of 6 years. Suit is barred by limitation. Hence Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC for rejection of plaint has to be allowed.”

7. Sri Veerendra R Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that suit is hopelessly barred by time inasmuch as the agreement to sell is dated 10.12.2012. He further contended that there was a total silence on the part of the plaintiff till 19.09.2019 where under a notice came to be issued and time fixed for the enforcement of the contract was nine months from 10.12.2012 which ended on 10.09.2013 and thus sought for dismissal of the suit.

8. None appears for the respondent.

9