- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9354 CRP No. 300 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 300 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. PUTTAMMA D/O CHIKKAMADAPPA, W/O REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATTAGATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577527. 2. SHANTHAMMA D/O CHIKKAMADAPPA, W/O JARUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577527. 3. HEMAVATHI D/O CHIKKAMADAPPABEH W/O SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND OLD COURT BUILDING, HOSADURGA TOWN-577527. 4. SUNDARAMMA W/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND OLD COURT BUILDING, HOSADURGA TOWN-577527. 5. SUSHEELAMMA W/O NEELAKANATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9354 CRP No. 300 of 2024 RESIDING NEAR HALDAMMA TEMPLE, BHADRAVATHI TOWN, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577527. 6. H T VIJAYA S/O THIPPESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT HONNEKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577527. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANIAN K B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVAMURTHI S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND RETIRED TEACHER. 2. NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST 3. RAMESHAPPA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST 4. DEVENDRAPPA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST ALL ARE R/O HONNEKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9354 CRP No. 300 of 2024 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.VIII IN OS NO.91/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA., REJECTING THE IA NO.VIII FILED UNDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This Civil Revision Petition raises a similar issue as this Court found in C.R.P.No.248/2024, a case between Sri.Gangaraju Vs. Ramappa and others, which was disposed of on 17.01.2025. 2. The issue was regarding the delay of nearly 57 years in filing a suit seeking specific performance of a contract. This Court held in the said case 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 provision is that the plaintiff is required to raise a demand for execution of the sale date within reasonable time. It - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9354 CRP No. 300 of 2024 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. This Court found that such conduct of the plaintiff is very crucial, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chand Rani Vs. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519. 3. In this case too, there is a delay of 47 years in filing the suit seeking specific performance of a contract. The case stands covered on all fours in the said case of Sri.Gangaraju. 4. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The application filed by the defendants in I.A.No.VIII under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC is allowed, while rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.91/2021. Ordered accordingly. 5. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL