- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5220 WP No. 33641 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 33641 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S HDFC BANK LTD., (FORMERLY HDFC LTD. PRIOR TO AMALGAMATION) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT. HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL W, MUMBAI 400 013 ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT. H.D.F.C. HOUSE, NO. 51 KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY MR. SHRIDHAR CHINNI SENIOR MANAGER RETAIL PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT (LEGAL) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARUN S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI DIVAKARAN SUNIL KUMAR S/O SRI. R.DIVAKARAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT ANANTHEN KERIL HOUSE T.V. PURAM P.O., MUTHEDATHU KAVU VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA 686 606. 2. M/S. SANCHAYA LAND & ESTATE PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT. NO. 479, PID NO.98-45-479 H.M.T. LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5220 WP No. 33641 of 2024 BENGALURU 560 032. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE/DIRECTOR 3. M/S. MRUDANI POWER CONTROLS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF SRI. PARAMESHWAR H S HAVING OFFICE AT NO.11 3RD CROSS, SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU - 560 072. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 30.01.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 26.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LD. X ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION) BENGALURU RURAL IN COM.O.S.NO. 145 OF 2023 ON I.A.NO. 8 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 SEEKING REJECTION OF COUNTER CLAIM AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Com.O.S.No.145/2023 on IA No.VIII filed by the petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5220 WP No. 33641 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (d) of CPC, whereby the Commercial Court has rejected the application. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and recovery of money. After service of summons defendant No.1 filed the written statement and also counter-claim. After filing of the written statement, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application - IA No.8 under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (d) of CPC for rejection of the counter-claim on two grounds, firstly, the prayer sought by defendant No.1 seeking a declaration is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The second ground is that the counter-claim is undervalued. In the prayer No.VIII of the counter-claim, the first defendant sought to declare that the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant as null and void and not binding on the first defendant. But he has not paid the court fee under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fee and suits Valuation Act, 1958. On this ground, he sought for rejection of the plaint. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5220 WP No. 33641 of 2024 3. In respect of limitation is concerned, the trial court is justified in rejecting the same on the ground that the limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and that can be decided only after framing the issue. 4. In respect of the second ground is concerned, the trial court has given a finding that there is no relief sought for declaration in respect of the sale deed standing in the name of defendant No.3. In fact, the prayer in the counter-claim is very clear that to declare the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant as null and void and not binding on the first defendant. To that extent, the finding given by the trial court is contrary to the materials available on record and the same has to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5220 WP No. 33641 of 2024 Bengaluru on IA No.8 in O.S.No.145/2023 in respect of the finding of the trial court in respect of insufficiency of court fee, is set aside. (iii) The trial court is directed to re-consider IA No.8 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff only in respect of second ground raised in respect of court fee, after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law. (iv) In respect of limitation is concerned, the trial court is directed to frame an additional issue along with other issues and it may be disposed of on merits. (v) In view of disposal of the main matter, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35