- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14525 CRP No. 100097 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100097 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MURALIDHARRAO S/O RAGHAVENDRARAO KULKARNI, AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, NOW AT: #44/72 “HONDADAKATTI” BUILDING, NEAR SAMBHAVNATH JAIN TEMPLE, II CROSS, HOSUR (EAST), HUBBALLI-580 021 (KA). 2. SMT. BHAGYASHREE W/O SUDHEENDRA KULKARNI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, NOW AT: 2/5/91, “BRINDAVANA”, NEAR PANCHALINGESHWAR TEMPLE, NOOLA GALLI, SEDAM-585 222 (KA). 3. SMT. PREETI W/O NAGENDRA DESAI, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, NOW AT: PLOT #9 “SULOCHANA”, GREEN PARK SOCIETY, NEAR MAKING HEADLINES, BEHIND SEASONS BUSINESS CENTER, AUNDH, PUNE-411007 (MH). 4. SRI. RAVI S/O MURALIDHAR KULKARNI, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE, NOW AT: #44/72 “HONDADAKATTI” BUILDING, NEAR SAMBHAVNATH JAIN TEMPLE, II CROSS, HOSUR (EAST), HUBBALLI-580 021 (KA). (PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 IS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER THE PETITIONER NO.4) … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGPRASAD S. KINI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14525 CRP No. 100097 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. SHARADABAI W/O RAVAJIRAO KULKARNI, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, NOW AT: R/O. KULKARNI BUILDING, NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, 2ND CROSS, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-580 021. 2. THE HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (HDMC), REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HDMC, HUBBALLI. … RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S. NO.294/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LD. COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 DISMISSING THE INTERIM APPLICATION IN I.A. NO.6 IN O.S. NO.294/2025 PASSED BY THE LD. COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI MAY BE SET ASIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY I.A. NO.6 MAY BE ALLOWED AND THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.294/2025 MAY BE REJECTED AS BARRED BY LAW. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14525 CRP No. 100097 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order rejecting the petitioners' application in I.A.6 in O.S.294/2025 made under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint. 2. The suit is one for specific performance of contract dated 10.07.2003 said to have been executed by Radhabai, the mother of the defendants No.2 to 4. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants would submit that the execution of the agreement for sale is disputed. Radhabai died ten years prior to the institution of the suit and the suit is clearly time barred. 4. The Trial Court refused to reject the plaint on the premise that the averments made in the plaint do not attract the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, requires trial. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14525 CRP No. 100097 of 2025 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. The agreement dated 10.07.2003 does not specify the time limit for performance of the contract. In such an event, the limitation begins to run from the date of refusal. Paragraph No.7 of the plaint would indicate that Radhabai on a request made by the plaintiff, agreed to execute the sale deed. Thereafter she died. Paragraph No.8 of the plaint would indicate that the plaintiff made a request to execute the sale deed to the defendants, the legal representatives of Radhabai to execute the sale deed. It is stated that the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed. 7. Since the agreement for sale does not specify any specific time limit to perform the part of the contract, this Court is of the view that the contention that the plaint is time barred cannot be entertained at this stage. 8. The contention whether the suit is time barred or not is a question that is to be decided after the trial. In - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14525 CRP No. 100097 of 2025 addition to that, whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract is also required to be considered as the agreement is dated 10.07.2003 i.e., before the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NAA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 63