IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100020 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

M/S SHYAMARAJU & COMPANY (INDIA) LTD., A PRIVATE COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1955 CORPORATE OFFICE AT DHIVYASHREE CHAMBERS, A WING, #11 O’ SHAUGENSSY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025.

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. V.M. MATHEW …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

Digital ly signed AND:

by MOHANKUMAR B SHE LAR 1. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, Location: High CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL ILKAL, Court of Karnataka, TALUKA HUNGUND Dharwad Bench BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587125.

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION (KUIDFC), NAGARABHIVRUDDHI BHAVAN, #22, 17 F CROSS, BINAMANGAL 2^ND STAGE, OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.

3. THE PROJECT MANAGER, KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION, NORTH KARNATAKA URBAN SECTOR INVESTMENT PROGRAMME KUIDFC-NKUSIP, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT

1^ST FLOOR, CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX, GOAVES, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590 011.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYAN G. RASALKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.V IN OS NO.95/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS CRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition calling in question the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, rejecting I.A. No.V filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908(‘the CPC’ for short) seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.95/2016 on the ground of limitation.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are that:-

The petitioner and the respondents entered into a contract on 18.10.2010 for execution of sewerage works. The said contract came to be terminated by the respondents on 26.04.2012. The petitioner challenged the termination before this Court by filing a writ petition, which came to be dismissed on 11.01.2013. The writ appeal filed thereafter was also dismissed on 15.02.2013.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted O.S.No.130/2013 before the competent Civil Court seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the termination order. During the pendency of the said suit, liberty was granted by this Court to file a separate suit for damages after disposal of the said suit.

4. After termination of the contract, the respondents undertook measurement of the work already executed, prepared estimates for the balance work, obtained approval from the competent authority and got the balance work executed through another contractor at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Based on such exercise, damages were quantified. On 09.11.2016, the respondents filed O.S.No.95/2016 before the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund, seeking recovery of damages and cost of balance work.

5. After appearance in the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.V under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the CPC contending that the suit is barred by limitation, as according to the petitioner the cause of action arose on 26.04.2012 itself, the date of termination of contract. The Trial Court, by order dated 26.10.2021, rejected I.A.No.V holding that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order passed on I.A.No.V, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that A