- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48762 WP No. 7694 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 7694 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING AND A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC COMPLEX SHANTHINAGAR K H ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MS. HARINAXI T. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NISHANTH A.V, ADV.) AND: MICRONOVA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 REGISTERED OFFICE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.43 WAT STREET, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RAJASHREE B, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 4 IN COM OS NO. 651/2023 BY THE HONBLE LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-85), VIDE ANNEXURE-A. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48762 WP No. 7694 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.03.2024 passed on IA No.IV in Commercial O.S.No. 651 of 2023 by the Court of LXXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Respondent herein has filed Commercial O.S.No.651 of 2023 before the jurisdictional commercial Court, Bengaluru against the petitioner herein with a prayer to direct the defendant to pay an amount of ₹.11,65,074/- with interest. In the said suit, the defendant / petitioner herein has entered appearance and has filed his written statement denying the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant to reject the plaint on the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48762 WP No. 7694 of 2024 ground that there was no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit was barred by limitation. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objection. The trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA No.IV filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner / defendant is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that plaint averments itself would go to show that suit is barred by limitation. There was no cause of action for filing the suit. The trial court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in rejecting the I.A.No.IV. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND OTHERS V. SHRIMANTH CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER - (2024) 15 SCC 675 and submits that when it is evident from the plaint averments that suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, plaint needs to be rejected. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48762 WP No. 7694 of 2024 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that as per the averments found in the plaint, the suit is not barred by limitation. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only the plaint averments needs to be considered. It is trite that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which is required to be decided based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The Trial Court was therefore justified in rejecting the application. He submits that suit is at the stage of cross-examination of PW1 and the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, that suit in Com.O.S.No.651 of 2023 is filed by the respondent herein before the jurisdictional commercial Court at Bangalore with a prayer to direct the defendant to pay an amount of ₹.11,65,074/- with interest. According to the plaintiff, there was a memorandum of understanding entered into between the parties in the year 2008 and the plaintiff had carried out data entry work for defendant and had raised - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48762 WP No. 7694 of 2024 invoices subsequently and in the plaint it is averred that defendant had indicated receipt of payment in the month of August 2022 and thereafter a demand was made for payment of amount due from defendant by issuing legal notice and since the defendant had failed to pay the amount due, the suit was filed. 7. 7. From the aforesaid averments found in the plaint it cannot be said that prima facie from the averments found in the plaint itself, the suit is barred by limitation. At the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is only required to go by the averments found in the plaint and cannot subtract or add anything to the same. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SALIM d AGBOATWALA & OTHERS V SHAMALJI ODDHAVJI THAKKAR & OTHERS - (2021) 17 SCC 100, has held that the question of limitation is a triable issue and the suit cannot be dismissed at threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, in such cases. In the said case, it is also observed that if a party succeeds in establishing on evidence, date of gaining knowledge, period of limitation will start running from that date - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48762 WP No. 7694 of 2024 and question to exercise power of limitation must be decided on that basis. For the purpose of exercising the power of rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation the conditions precedent are very stringent and only in exceptional cases where the averments found in the plaint itself would go to show that suit is barred by limitation then in the said event, plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation. 9. In the case of SRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where it is evident from the plaint averments that suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, then the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, irrespective of the fact that issue of limitation is generally a question of fact and law and has to be decided after weighing the evidence. 10. In the case on hand, plaint averment itself does not make it very clear that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is for the plaintiff to produce necessary materials before the trial court to explain that the suit is in time. The application in the present case has been filed after the examination-in-chief of PW1 was completed and when the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48762 WP No. 7694 of 2024 was at the stage of cross-examination of PW1. Undisputedly, the trial Court has raised an issue with regard to limitation in the present suit and plaintiff has already led his evidence on the said issue and now the defendant is required to cross- examine PW1. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly rejected I.A.No.IV filed on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order. 11. Accordingly the following:- ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) It is needless to state that trial Court shall make endeavours to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22