- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1901 CRP No. 248 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.248 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI GANGARAJU S/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS KENCHAPURA VILLAGE HUTUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR- 563103 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH P N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A) 1(B) 1(C) RAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS MANJUNATHA S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS SRINIVAS S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL ARE R/A KENCHAPURA VILLAGE HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TQ & DISTRICT Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1901 CRP No. 248 of 2024 2. SUBRAMANI PRASAD S/O LATE GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT THIMMAMMPETTAI VILLAGE AND POST, VIA AMBALUR VANAYAMBADI TALUK VELLOR DISTRICT TAMILNADU STATE 635801 3. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT THIMMAMMPETTAI VILLAGE AND POST, VIA AMBALUR VANAYAMBADI TALUK VELLOR DISTRICT TAMILNADU STATE – 635801. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(C) SRI. S. SIDDALINGAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DATED 14.9.23 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR, ON THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION (I.A VIII) IN OS 820/2017 FILED UNDER U/O 7 RULE 11(D) OF CPC, 1908 FOR BEING HIGHLY PERVERSE, UNJUST, ARBITRARY, AND CAPRICIOUS, BIASED, AND ALSO FOR LACKING PROPER JUDICIAL REASONING ON THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, PRODUCED HERE UNDER AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1901 CRP No. 248 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is defendant No.3 in O.S.No.820/2017 filed by the 1st respondent Sri Ramappa, who is no more. Sri Ramappa filed the suit seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.01.1960 said to have been executed by late Sri K.V.Channabasappa, who is also no more. The defendant No.1 is the grand son of Sri K.V.Channabasappa; defendant No.2 is the daughter-in- law of Sri K.V.Channabasappa; defendant No.3 is the petitioner herein, who had entered into an agreement with defendants No.1 and 2 on 12.05.2014. On refusal of defendants No.1 and 2 to execute a sale deed in favour of the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent filed O.S.No.681/2014 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale deed dated 26.10.1960. It is only thereafter this suit in O.S.No.820/2017 is filed by Ramappa. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1901 CRP No. 248 of 2024 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court. 3. The defendant No.3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure raising a contention that the suit for specific performance is barred by the law of limitation, since the plaintiff is seeking such a prayer and has approached the court after lapse of more than 57 years. The trial court however rejected the application on the ground that Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of three years for filing of a suit for specific performance of a contract and the time for such suit would commence from the date fixed for the performance of the contract, if no such date is fixed, the time commences from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The trial court accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff acquired knowledge of refusal only on 31.10.2017 after issuance of legal notice to the defendants. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1901 CRP No. 248 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.3 places reliance on a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH KUMAR /VS./ ANAND KUMAR & ORS. in Civil Appeal No.7840 of 2023 decided on 17.05.2024, wherein the initial agreement was entered into between the parties on 26.09.1995 and two more agreements were entered into subsequently along with endorsement for extension of time for the performance of the contract. The suit was preferred on 09.05.2000 on the last date of limitation. In such a situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the suit having been preferred after a long delay, the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance on such ground. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed several earlier judgments which held that when no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner for the long delay of three years in filing the suit after issuing a legal notice, the conduct of the plaintiff is very crucial in a suit for specific performance. It was also noticed that in several other decisions of the Apex Court it was held consistently that in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1901 CRP No. 248 of 2024 the case of agreement of sale relating to immoveable property, two circumstances would emanate and it does not follow that any and every suit for specific performance of the agreement (which does not provide specifically that time is of the essence of the contract) should be decreed provided it is filed within the period of limitation notwithstanding the time-limits stipulated in the agreement for doing one or the other thing by one or the other party. That would amount to saying that the time limits prescribed by the parties in the agreement have no significance or no value and that they mean nothing. Therefore, a rhetoric question was framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stating, “would it be reasonable to say that because time is not made the essence of the contract, the time limit specified in the agreement have no relevance and can be ignored with impunity?” It would also mean denying the discretion vested in the court by both Sections 10 and 20. It was noticed that such a view was taken by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1901 CRP No. 248 of 2024 the case of Chand Rani /vs./ Kamal Rani (1993) 1 SCC 519. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that it is clear from the facts narrated herein above that the suit in O.S.No.820/2017 was filed after the petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.681/2014 seeking specific performance of the contract entered into between the petitioner herein and defendants No.1 and 2. It is therefore the contention of the petitioner that the plaintiff has been set up to file the suit only to counter the suit already filed by the petitioner herein. 6. To a pointed question put to the learned counsel for the plaintiff as to why the plaintiff did not call upon Sri K.V.Channabasappa, to execute the sale deed in his favour and no explanation is offered for the long and inordinate delay of more than 57 years in seeking specific performance or calling upon Sri K.V. Channabasappa when he was alive to come and execute the sale deed, there is no answer from the learned counsel for the plaintiff. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1901 CRP No. 248 of 2024 7. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff is set up by defendants No.1 and 2 after the suit was filed by defendant No.3 seeking specific performance of the contract dated 12.05.2014. It is also noticeable that Article 54 of the Limitation Act prescribes that if no such date is fixed for performance of the contract, then the time begins to run when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused by the defendant. What can be read into the said provisions is that the plaintiff is required to raise a demand for execution of the sale deed within reasonable time. It does not mean that the plaintiff can keep quite for more than 57 years and thereafter issue a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed and immediately thereafter, file a suit. The conduct of the plaintiff is therefore very crucial, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No plausible explanation is coming forth from the plaintiff to explain why he kept quite for more than 57 years without calling upon the person who originally entered into an agreement, namely Sri K.V. Channabasappa, to execute the sale deed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1901 CRP No. 248 of 2024 in favour of the plaintiff, during his life time. The explanation sought to be given by the plaintiff is unreasonable and not acceptable. The trial court has clearly erred in over looking these facts which are borne out of the plaint. There was no further requirement to be looked into than calling upon the plaintiff to answer why there was an inordinate delay of more than 57 years in filing the suit for specific performance. In the considered opinion of this Court such hopelessly barred suit should be thrown out at the threshold having regard to such objections raised by the defendants. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the application filed by the defendant No.3 in I.A.No.8 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure is allowed while rejecting the plaint. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT:JL