- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11412 CRP No. 409 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 409 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. C. R. BALARAPATTANA VIDYA SAMSTHE, REPRESENTED BY, BROTHER AGNEL ALMENDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE BENJAMIN ALMENDA R/AT C.R.BALARAPATTANA HOUSE, RAMASAMUDRA, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 342. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BINU M., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. CHENNAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNARAJU, D/O KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION, NEW NAYAKA STREET, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 342. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PARAMESWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2023 PASSED ON IA.NO.1 IN E.A.T. NO.2/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, CHAMARAJNAGAR., REJECTING THE Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11412 CRP No. 409 of 2023 APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is an Education Institution which is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Chamrajanagar in an appeal filed under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act and more particularly the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent who was working as part time teacher in the Institution was removed from service on 08.06.2020. Thereafter since there were some disturbances created by the respondent, the petitioner herein filed a suit in OS.No.126/2021 seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the activities of the school. The said suit is still pending consideration. However, the respondent herein has filed written statement very clearly admitting that she worked - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11412 CRP No. 409 of 2023 in the School between 05.06.2006 to 08.06.2020. It is only thereafter that an appeal under Section 94 was filed before the Education Appellate Tribunal seeking a direction to reinstate the appellant along with the arrears of salary payable from 05.06.2006 upto date. Learned counsel submits that sub section 1 of Section 94 provides that an appeal is required to be filed within three months from the date of removal of the person from the Institution. However, the appeal has been filed after a long delay of more than 1 year 4 months and the appeal is not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner therefore filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), seeking rejection of the appeal on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent however submits that it is still open for the respondent to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as provided in sub section 2 of Section 94 of the Act. Moreover in a catena of decisions this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the question of limitation is always a mixed question of law and facts and an application under Order VII Rule 11 in this regard cannot be considered as a question of law only. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11412 CRP No. 409 of 2023 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that under the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of the petitioner that appeal itself should be rejected on the ground that the appeal is filed after delay of 1 year 4 months. Although it is true that the appeal should have been accompanied along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, nevertheless that by itself will not enable the petitioner to seek rejection of the appeal by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The question of bar of limitation as found in Order VII Rule 11 which is normally made applicable to a plaint, cannot be equated to an appeal filed under a statute. Delayed appeals are entitled to be maintained along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, invocation of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in an appeal, where a specific provision is contained enabling the party to invoke the provisions of the Limitation Act to seek condonation of delay has to be noticed by this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11412 CRP No. 409 of 2023 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC in the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, has been rightly rejected by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamrajanagar. Consequently, the CRP stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DS CT:TSM