- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44735 CRP No. 267 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 267 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAVICHANDRA NADAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA NADAR R/AT NO. 21, SRI SAI RUDRASHARAM ROAD SAI LAYOUT, FCI MAIN ROAD, CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 067 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.774, POST OFFICE ROAD, NEAR CHURCH, KADUGODI BENGLAURU - 560 067 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH N., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44735 CRP No. 267 of 2022 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN OS.NO.616/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURUAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. REJECTING THE I.A. NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC. 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. Nagaraja Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. None appears for the respondent. 3. Defendant in O.S No.616/2020 is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed on I.A No.2 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru whereby the application seeking rejection of the plaint came to be rejected. 4. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition as under:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44735 CRP No. 267 of 2022 4.1 A suit for specific enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 15.02.1974 in respect of the following property came to be filed. All that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Survey No.62 and 64, measuring 32 (Thirty Two) Guntas, situated at Sheegehalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore District and bounded on: East by: Canal West by: Land belonging to Krishnappa North by: Land belonging to Krishnappa South by: Land belonging to K.S. Shanmugam 4.2 There was a legal embargo to sell the property and register the sale deed on account of Prevention of Fragmentation Act. On account of Prevention of Fragmentation act inforce, agreement also contains a clause that after the said embargo is removed, the sale deed would be executed. 4.3 In the meantime, the vendor said to have died in the year 2000. plaintiff claims to be the wife of the purchaser, filed the suit in the year 2020. 4.4 Defendant is the grandson of the vendor, opposed the suit and also filed an application under order VII Rule 11 of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44735 CRP No. 267 of 2022 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC' for short) to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation. 4.5. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. 5. Validity of the said order is called in question in this revision question. 6. Sri. Nagaraja Hegde, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that plaintiff status as the wife of the purchaser is denied; so also the suit is barred by limitation as the agreement of the year 1974 is now sought to be enforced by filing a suit in the year 2020. 7. Learned counsel for respondent is absent. 8. Having heard the arguments putforth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is a clause in the agreement that the parties would be required to get the sale deed executed after the legal embargo is lifted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44735 CRP No. 267 of 2022 10. Original vendor during his lifetime, after lifting of the embargo, did not call upon the purchaser to get the sale deed executed. But it is contended that the agreement itself is cancelled. No details are forthcoming in this regard. Further such cancellation is not pleaded. 11. These are all the disputed facts which needs to be taken into consideration and trashed out after full fledged trial by recording the evidence of the parties. 12. Therefore, rejection of the application seeking to throw away the plaint at the threshold is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision petition. 13. Hence, following:- ORDER Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88 CT-SG