- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44457 RSA No. 1140 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1140 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. UMA, W/O LATE PANDURANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.766, 28TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU CITY-560076. REPRESENTED BY HER P.A. HOLDER, SRI. D.R.JAIPRAKASH, S/O LATE D.S.RAJARAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT DEVASTHANADAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KYATHANARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT DEVASTHANADAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44457 RSA No. 1140 of 2024 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.131/2023 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.165/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding in respect of the issue involved between the parties whether the suit is barred by limitation. The Trial Court answered the issue with regard to proving of the sale agreement is concerned in the negative, but the First Appellate Court having considered the agreement is a registered sale agreement, comes to the conclusion that agreement is proved and also payment of Rs.1,90,000/- as against Rs.2,00,000/- and held the same in the affirmative. The First Appellate Court with regard to the readiness is concerned, answered the same - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44457 RSA No. 1140 of 2024 partly in the affirmative. With regard to the limitation is concerned, answered the same in the negative and while passing an order, in paragraph No.37, taken note of the date of agreement as 17.10.2007. Having perused the recital of document Ex.P.6 sale agreement, time is the essence of contract i.e., 3 years time is fixed and the same elapses on 17.10.2010. But the suit was admittedly filed on 30.03.2016 almost after 9 years and also discussed that as per first part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the time is fixed for performance of the contract, then suit has to be filed within 3 years from the date of expiry of the date fixed for performance of the contract. In the case on hand, when the time is stipulated and time is the essence of the contract, ought to have filed the suit within 3 years and the same is not filed and belatedly and hopelessly filed the suit after 9 years of agreement and hence answered the point with regard to the limitation is concerned in the negative. 3. Now the learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that when the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that agreement was not proved and when the same - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44457 RSA No. 1140 of 2024 is reversed by the First Appellate Court, atleast ought to have passed an order for refund of amount. The learned counsel would contend that substantial question of law has to be framed with regard to refund of money is concerned and hence the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is not in accordance with law. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is an agreement and the agreement is also a registered sale agreement and also amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was paid and time is stipulated for a period of 3 years and when the time is stipulated, ought to have filed the suit within 3 years in order to avoid the limitation, but not filed the suit within 3 years. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that when the time is stipulated and time is the essence of contract, initiating the suit after 9 years is hopelessly barred by limitation. When the suit is filed after 9 years and when the time is stipulated for 3 years, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the same. The Trial Court and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44457 RSA No. 1140 of 2024 the First Appellate Court have not committed any error, since the appellant has approached the Court belatedly after 9 years of sale agreement and when the same is barred by limitation, the question of even passing any order for refund of amount also does not arise. The very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this Court has to admit the appeal, frame substantial question of law and issue notice against the respondent cannot be accepted when the suit is not within time. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35