- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51615 CRP No. 424 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 424 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: M.S. JEEVITHESH S/O LATE M.S. SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.1036/6, SARVAJANIKA HOSTEL MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU - 570 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESH C.M, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. GANGAMMA DEAD BY LR'S 1. A.V.NAGARAJ S/O LATE A. VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SMT. A.V. GUNASAGARI D/O LATE A VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. A.V. ANUSUYA DEVI D/O LATE A. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51615 CRP No. 424 of 2023 4. A.V. GAYATHRI DEVI D/O LATE A. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 5. A.V. GANESH BABU S/O LATE A VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 6. A.V. SAVITRI DEVI D/O LATE A VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 7. A.V. SHARADA DEVI D/O LATE A VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 8. A.V. SOMASHEKHAR S/O LATE A VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.695/1-B, SIDDAPPA VATTARA, BEHIND PADMA TALKIES, B.B. GARDEN ROAD, FORT MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2020 PASSED ON I.A. NO.IV IN O.S.NO.654/2019 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, REJECTING THE I.A. NO.1V FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51615 CRP No. 424 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Jagadeesh C. M., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.B.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.654/2019 challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) vide I.A.No.4. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed by the respondents/plaintiffs with the following prayer in respect of the following properties: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51615 CRP No. 424 of 2023 “Wherefore, the plaintiffs prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree for specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 06.06.1986 against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs: a. Directing the defendant to execute and register the sale deed of the ‘A’ schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs; b. Put the plaintiffs in possession of the ‘A’ schedule property except ‘B’ schedule c. For the cost of the suit, d. Such other appropriate reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” A SCHEDULE “ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, ¥sÉÇÃmïð ªÉƺÀ¯Áè, ¥ÀzÁä mÁQÃ¸ï »A¨sÁUÀ, ©.©.UÁqÀð£ï gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.695, 1 jAzÀ 8 MlÄÖ 9 ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ½gÀĪÀ ªÀoÁgÀ, ¥ÀǪÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ 115 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ, zÀQëuÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ zÀQëtzÀ PÀqÉUÉ 41 CrUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ zÀQëuÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ 14 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ PÀqÉ zÀQëuÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ 48 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ F ;ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51615 CRP No. 424 of 2023 ¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ : 695-1 JA.J¸ï. ²ªÀ¸Áé«ÄgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ, zÀQëtPÉÌ : UÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 700 ²æäªÁ¸À DgÁzsÀågÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : 616 ¨ÉlÖzÀ¥ÀÅgÀzÀ ªÀÄoÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : UÀ°è AiÀiÁ gÀ¸ÉÛ. F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ 60 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀQëuÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ 41 CrUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ zÀQëuÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ 14 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀð ¥À²ÑªÉÄ 18 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ 41x 60= 2460+14 x 18 = 252 MlÄÖ 2712 ¥ÀzÀgÀ CrUÀ½gÀĪÀ F ;ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛ. "B" Schedule Part and parcel of the "A" Schedule Property as "GHIJ" in the annexed Sketch, wherein the Plaintiffs are presently residing. 3.2. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement along with the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint as time barred. 3.3. The reason assigned by the plaintiffs is that the agreement to sell was misplaced and it was traced in the year 2019 even though the time fixed in the agreement of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51615 CRP No. 424 of 2023 three years is elapsed, time is not the essence of the contract and therefore, sought for the decree of the suit. 3.4. Defendant contended that the contention of the plaintiff that the agreement was misplaced is incorrect and only with an intention to bring the suit within time, false contentions have been taken by the plaintiff which is per se illegal and thus, sought for rejection of the plaint. 3.5. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections, dismissed the application holding that question of limitation needs to be addressed during the trial. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court, in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the agreement is of the year 1986 and the contention of the plaintiff that it was traced in 2019 is nothing but a self-serving testimony and therefore, the suit ought to have been rejected. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51615 CRP No. 424 of 2023 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff supports the impugned order. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the legal representatives of the original agreement holder are the plaintiffs. 9. They contend that after the death of the father, the agreement was traced only in the year 2019 and date of the tracing of the agreement is mentioned in cause of action paragraph in paragraph No.9 of the plaint as 27.05.2019. 10. Whether at all, the plaintiffs were kept in dark till up to 2019 about the suit agreement is a question of fact that needs to be established during the trial by the parties by placing appropriate material evidence. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51615 CRP No. 424 of 2023 11. Therefore, rejection of the plaint at the threshold is impermissible by holding a mini trial as to the rival contentions of the parties. 12. In view of the same, rejection of the application does not require interference of this Court in this revisional jurisdiction. 13. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and parties are at liberty to canvass all their respective contentions including the question of limitation in accordance with law during the trial. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41