- 1 - CRP No. 100112/2019 RESERVED ON : 17.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100112 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. K.M. RUDRASWAMY CHIEF ENGINEER (RETIRED), SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, A. SMT. SHASHIRANI W/O K.M. RUDRASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, B. SMT. SHARMILA D/O. LATE K.M. RUDRASWAMY, AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS, C. SRI. RAVINDRA S/O. K.M. RUDRASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, ALL THE LRS ARE R/A: NO.1, "RAVI NILAYA", 2ND CROSS, (EAST), VIDYANAGAR, BALLARI-583275, TALUK AND DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.S. YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.26 14:38:12 +0530 - 2 - CRP No. 100112/2019 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI. 2 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.1, T.R. DIVISION, MUNIRABAD, KOPPAL TALUK, AND DISTRICT-583233. …RESPONDENTS (By SRI PRAVEEN DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS No.1 and 2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT, THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.106/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HOSAPETE, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.XIV FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. IN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION ARGUMENTS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Revision petitioner/defendants No.1(a) to 1(c), who are the legal heirs of original defendant have filed this revision petition against the order dated 19.08.2019 passed on I.A.No.XIV filed under Order-VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete (for short, ‘the trial Court’) in O.S.No.106/2013. - 3 - CRP No. 100112/2019 2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of this revision petition are that the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.no.106/2013 for recovery of money on 16.11.2013 after a lapse of 13 years against the deceased-defendant-K.M.Rudraswamy, who was a Retired Chief Engineer, Irrigation Central Zone, Munirabad. After service of summons, the defendant-K.M. Rudraswamy (deceased) appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement, contending that neither a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him while he was in service nor the Government had passed an order to conduct departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings, immediately within four years from the date of his retirement. During the pendency of the suit the original defendant expired on 23.02.2016 and hence, his LRs where brought on record as per order dated 14.11.2018. The petitioners being the legal heirs of deceased- original defendant-K.M. Rudraswamy have filed their additional written statement taking a technical plea of cause of action, non-maintainability of Suit, as it is barred by Limitation under Section 214(3) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules. - 4 - CRP No. 100112/2019 Petitioners/defendants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint as per Rule 214(3) read with Rule 214(6)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules contending that if the proceedings are not initiated while the Government servant was in service, before his retirement or during his employment, the said proceedings will be without jurisdiction and accordingly, prayed for rejection of the suit. The said application came to be rejected on 19.08.2019. Hence, petitioners have filed revision petition. 4. Learned Senior counsel Sri S.S.Yadrami appearing for revision petitioners would submit that the trial Court has misconstrued Rule 214(3) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules and has wrongly dismissed the application for rejection of plaint. Rule 214(3) of KCSR stipulates that no judicial proceedings can be initiated against a government servant for a cause of action or event that occurred more than four years prior to the institution of those proceedings, if the proceedings are not initiated while the government servant is still in service. 5. Further, he would submit that in the present case, the main cause of action arose on 15.09.1997 and on 17.12.1997, the date on which Hospete Urban Development Authority, - 5 - CRP No. 100112/2019 Hosapete has made representation requesting the plaintiff to provide cover duct to the Basavanna Canal, Hosapete and on 06.05.1999 when the plaintiff made payment to Contractors as per the order of this Court. The defendant attained superannuation on 31.07.1998, whereas on 16.11.2013 suit in O.S.No.106/2013 was instituted against the original defendant, after a lapse of 15 years from the date on which Hosapete Urban Development Authority, Hosapete has made representation requesting the plaintiff to provide cover duct to the Basavanna Canal, Hosapete. Further he would submit that the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the correct position of law, wherein as per Article 112 and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, it becomes clear that if a different period is fixed by a special or a local law, such period must apply in preference to the period laid down in Sections or Articles in the schedule to the Act, unless it is not expressly excluded in such special or local law. To substantiate his arguments, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) Judgment passed by the division bench of Kalaburagi Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. V.H.Agarkhed and Another – ILR 2017 KAR 3473. - 6 - CRP No. 100112/2019 (b) Judgment passed in the case of G.R.Muttagi and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, R.F.A.No.200024/2017 by the division bench of Kalaburagi Bench of this Court. (c) Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. Shrikrishna Pandey, reported in 1996 AIR 1656. (d) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sangappa B. Berad and Another. (e) Judgment of Co-ordinate bench of this Court passed on 04.10.2018 in the case of Vijayakumar Uppin S/o.Baslingappa Uppin vs. The State of Karnataka and others, in WP.No.202528/2018 (GM-CPC). (f) The Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Naveen Kumar Sinha - 2014 INSC 874. 6. As against this, learned HCGP appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely there are no grounds to allow this revision petition and sought for its dismissal. - 7 - CRP No. 100112/2019 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether the revision petitioners have made out grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court? (2) Whether the revision petitioners have made out grounds to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC? (3) What order? Regarding Points No.1 & 2: 8. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. 9. Before re-appreciation of the material on record, it is necessary to mention here as to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.G. AGARKHED (supra) wherein at paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Judgment, it observed as under : “16. On going through the above provision of law, and Article 112 of the Act, it becomes clear that if a different period is fixed by a special or a local law such period must apply in preference to the period laid down in Sections or Articles in the Schedule to the Act unless it - 8 - CRP No. 100112/2019 is not expressly excluded in such special or local law. This proposition of law has also been laid down in the case of Secretary of State Vs. Municipality of Karachi, reported in AIR 1931 SIND 55. On going through the dictum laid down in the above case, it becomes clear that the period of limitation fixed by the special or local law has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting the limitation. Admittedly, KCSR are special Rules while the Act is a general law on limitation and in that background the limitation for recovery of loss caused by the employees while discharging their duties is four years. Admittedly in the instant case the suit has been filed after a lapse of nine years and one month. Therefore, the contention raised by the Additional Advocate General is not acceptable. It is also a well established principle of law that once limitation starts to run, it will never stop but by subsequent conduct as stipulated under the Act it can only extended. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that the provisions of Rule 214 of KCSR are applicable to the facts of the case. 17. The next contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate General is that while passing the impugned order, the trial Court has not answered all the Issues and thereby irregularity has crept in while passing the impugned order. For the purpose of answering that contention, we quote Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which reads as under:-“ "Order VII- plaint. - 9 - CRP No. 100112/2019 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the - 10 - CRP No. 100112/2019 Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." By a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it becomes clear that plaint can be rejected at any stage of the suit if the ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are made out. The Court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC not only on the threshold of the proceeding but at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, it is not necessary to answer all the Issues when the plaint is rejected on the threshold of the proceeding. That is the intent and spirit of the said provision. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this contention is also not acceptable. That the trial Court was right in rejecting the plaint. In view of the discussion made above, appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. Though we have heard the Additional Advocate General on I.A.No.1/2016 which has been filed for condonation of delay of 1141 days in filing the appeal, since we have heard the main matter on merits at length and the same is dismissed by this judgment, we do not find it necessary to pass separate order on the said application. In view of the dismissal of the appeal on merits, I.A.No.1/2016 is also dismissed.” 10. In the case on hand, on perusal of material on record, it is clear that plaintiffs have filed suit against the - 11 - CRP No. 100112/2019 original defendant, who was a retired Chief Engineer seeking recovery of Rs.1,85,17,600/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization on specific allegation that original defendant, while working as Chief Engineer in Munirabad, took up the cover duct work on Basavanna Canal of Hosapete City without approval of Government and he entrusted the said work to five contractors under piecemeal basis amounting to Rs.1,85,17,600/-. After completion of said work, in view of non-payment of bill amount, the Contractors approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing writ petition. As per the order of this Court, plaintiffs made payments to said Contractors as per details mentioned in page No.17 of the plaint. It is specifically averred that unauthorized work undertaken by the petitioner/defendant created unwanted financial burden to respondent/plaintiffs amounting to loss of Exchequer and hence he has filed the suit. 11. The original defendant has filed his written statement during his lifetime wherein he has admitted receiving of representation from HUDA in the year 1997 for construction of cover duct on Basavana Canal, while he was working as Chief Engineer in the Department, but he has denied to have taken - 12 - CRP No. 100112/2019 up said work without approval of the Government in violation of procedure. He has specifically contended that after receipt of representation of HUDA, he inspected Basavana Canal on 15.12.1997 and felt that providing cover duct to said canal is absolutely necessary. Further, HUDA was intimated to deposit cost of Rs.300 lakhs for said work and it informed its approval subject to providing cover duct with shopping complex and handing over the shops to them. Further, after construction of cover duct for a length of 30 meters on trial basis, on 04.01.1998 the Chief Minister of Karnataka inspected the same with Union Minister of HRD, Minister for RDPR and the Chief Minister instructed to extend over duct to entire length of canal passing through Hospete City. He further assured to release Rs.100 lakhs for said work immediately. Thereafter, HUDA took necessary action to mobilize the amount and Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer themselves took up the work by way of allocation to various contractors in view of short period. Hence, defendant had not allotted work to Contractors. No action can be initiated against defendant as the work was taken up as per instruction of Minister and he is retired on 31.07.1998. Further, no departmental enquiry is conducted against defendant and no approval was necessary for above - 13 - CRP No. 100112/2019 work in view of inspection by the Chief Minister. These amongst other grounds, the original defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendant reported to be dead during pendency of the suit and his legal heirs are brought on record as per order dated 14.11.2018. The legal heirs of original defendant have filed their additional written statement taking technical plea of cause of action, non-maintainability of suit on the ground of limitation and Section 214(3) of the KCSRs. 12. In paragraph no.12 of the plaint, it is stated that the cause of action in the suit arose on 15.09.1997 and 17.12.1997 being date of representation of HUDA, Hospete and approach of contractors to High Court, seeking direction to pay bill amount. The original defendant retired in the month of July 1998, plaintiff made payment to contractors as per order of Hon'ble High Court on 06.05.1999 and present suit is filed on 16.11.2013. 13. On perusal of plaint averments, it is crystal clear that the cause of action in the suit arose on 15.09.1997 and 17.12.1997. The original defendant attained superannuation on 31.07.1998. The suit in O.S.No.106/2013 was instituted against the original defendant after lapse of 15 years from the - 14 - CRP No. 100112/2019 date of cause of action. Now, the question would be “whether the suit is barred by law or limitation in view of Rule 214(3) of the KCSRs”? The trial Court has observed that in view of Article 112 of the Limitation Act and Rule 214 of the KCSRs are taken together, the last date of continuous cause of action has to be taken into consideration for reckoning limitation, which can be ascertained only after full-fledged trial and not at this stage. 14. In view of the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court, it is crystal clear that Article 112 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the case on hand. Admittedly, the defendants 1(a) to 1(c) are not Government employees governed by KCSR and the original defendant has attained superannuation in the year 1998 itself. Now, after lapse of 15 years from the date of his retirement, plaintiffs have filed suit which is barred under Rule 214(3) of KCSRs. 15. The averments made in the plaint, clearly shows that the suit is barred by time. Therefore, the trial Court is not at all required to adjudicate the matter. Accordingly, considering the plaint averments regarding limitation, keeping in mind the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered opinion that the - 15 - CRP No. 100112/2019 revision petitioners have made out grounds for interference with the order impugned passed by the trial Court. 16. It is also relevant to mention here as to the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND BHAVAN Trust v. SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSALE AND ANOTHER rendered in Civil Appeal No.14807 of 2024 decided on 20th December, 2024 wherein it is observed that forcing defendants to undergo the ordeal of a trial when the suit is clearly unsustainable and time-barred, is considered harmful and unjust. Hence, keeping in mind of the aforesaid decision, Points 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.3: 17. For the reasons aforestated and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 19.08.2019 passed on IA.No.XIV in O.S.No.106/2013 by the - 16 - CRP No. 100112/2019 Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, is set aside. (iii) I.A.No.XIV filed by defendants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC in O.S.No.106/2013 is allowed. Consequently, plaint filed by the plaintiff is rejected. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK