- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4592-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100017 OF 2020 (MON) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, G.R.B.C. DIV NO.3 GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHRIKANT GURAPPA TAFAKIRE @ TAPAKIRE AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: EX. ENGINEER (RETD.), R/O: VANTAMURI COLONY, SATYA MARGA, NEAR LAST BUS STOP, BELAGAVI-590017. 2. SRI. BARAMANGOUDA R. NARASANNAVAR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETD.), VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.04.04 12:31:29 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4592-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2020 NOW SERVING AT KNNL/MLBC DIVISION, NAVILUTEERTH, SOUDATTI, NOW R/O: BASAVKRUPA BEHIND COURT CAMPUS, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 3. SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. BELLUNKE AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: ASST. EX. ENGINEER (RETD.) NOW SERVING AT PWD CHIKKODI, TQ: CHIKKODI, NOW C/O. RAJENDRA PATIL, JOGOL ROAD, SIRAGUPPA, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591242. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.01.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.28/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, ALLOWING THE SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4592-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Captioned appeal is by the plaintiff assailing the order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint by applying the provisions under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b)(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for brevity, ‘the CPC’], the plaintiff is in appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff / Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited filed a recovery suit against its officials alleging that defendant No.1 who was discharging duty as Executive Engineer has collided with the contractor and contractor’s final bills are settled by revising the rates which was not contemplated under the contract. Hence, the suit filed against the officials of Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited seeking recovery of Rs.32,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18%. 4. Defendant No.1 on receipt of summons has tendered appearance and has filed an application under Order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4592-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2020 VII Rule 11(a)(b)(d) read with Section 151 of CPC in I.A. In the said application, defendant No.1 contended that he superannuated on 30.06.2003 as Superintendent Engineer and the plaintiff never conducted a Departmental Enquiry against him while he was in service under the provisions of Rule 214(3) read with Rule 214(6)(b)(2) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules [for brevity, ‘KCSR’] and contended that the present suit is barred by limitation. Hence, he sought for rejection of the plaint. 5. The trial Court having heard both the parties on an application was of the opinion that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is barred under Section 214(3) of the KCSR and therefore, proceeded to reject the plaint. While rejecting the plaint, the trial Court has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka and others vs. V.H. Agharked and another1. 6. The learned counsel appearing for Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited reiterated the grounds have vehemently argued and contended that the provisions of KCSR 1 HCR 2017 KAR 687 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4592-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2020 Rules are not applicable and the limitation governed under Limitation Act has to be applied and therefore, he would contend that suit for recovery money from retired government servant is maintainable since it is filed within 30 years. Referring to the provisions of Limitation Act, he would point out that the trial Court entertaining an application more particularly when the trial had commenced and therefore, defendant could not have invoked provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 placing reliance on the following citation would point out that the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. V.H. Agharked and another is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. He would point out that the facts are analogous and therefore, the order under challenge aligns with the proposition laid down by the Division Bench in the State of Karnataka and others vs. V.H. Agharked and another. Therefore, he would request this Court not to grant any indulgence. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant No1. We have given our anxious considerations to the averments made in the plaint. We have - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4592-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2020 also examined the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1. The following point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the rejection of the plaint by the trial Court invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC warrants interference in the hands of this Court?” 9. This Court, in a series of judgments, has consistently upheld the principle that while adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Court must restrict its examination solely to the averments made in the plaint, without delving into any extraneous material or defenses raised by the opposing party. In the present case, a careful perusal of paragraphs 4 to 6 of the plaint is crucial in determining the maintainability of the suit. These pleadings, when analyzed in detail, reveal that the alleged cause of action arose in the year 2004-05, specifically when the Accountant General, in its CAJ report, raised objections concerning financial implications amounting to Rs.1,28,00,000/-. Furthermore, the contents of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint indicate that extensive correspondence took place between the concerned authorities and that the matter - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4592-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2020 was duly taken cognizance of by higher authorities, as evident from a government circular bearing reference No.WRD/69/CAM/08 dated 30.09.2008. These material facts are of significant importance in determining the sustainability of the present suit. 10. In this context, the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. V.H. Agarkhed and another assumes direct relevance to the case at hand. The Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited has advanced the contention that the limitation prescribed under Rule 214(3) has already been comprehensively addressed by the Division Bench in the analogous case mentioned above. The Division Bench, while dealing with similar arguments raised by the State, categorically held that in cases where a specific period of limitation is prescribed under a special or local law, such a prescribed period must prevail over the general limitation periods provided under the Limitation Act, unless expressly excluded by the special or local law itself. 11. In view of the legal position elucidated by the Division Bench, we are of the considered opinion that the period of limitation prescribed under the relevant special law - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4592-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2020 must take precedence over the general limitation provisions of the Limitation Act. Given that the cause of action in the present case arose as far back as the year 2005, the institution of the present suit by the plaintiff against a retired employee suffers from an incurable legal defect, as it is manifestly barred by limitation. The statutory framework governing limitation mandates that if the suit, on the face of the pleadings in the plaint, is hopelessly time-barred, the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC must be invoked to reject the plaint at the threshold, without requiring a prolonged trial. 12. Upon meticulous examination of the impugned order, we find that the rejection of the plaint by the trial Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity. The findings recorded therein are in consonance with the settled legal principles governing limitation and maintainability of suits. In light of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any compelling reasons to interfere with the decision rendered by the trial Court. Consequently, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction to grant any relief in favor of the plaintiff, and the present challenge to the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4592-DB RFA No. 100017 of 2020 rejection of the plaint stands dismissed. Accordingly point formulated above is answered in the negative. 13. The appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSH / CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17