- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40526 CRP No. 58 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 58 OF 2021 (IO) BETWEEN: BANGARAPPA S/O VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE R/A MALLESHAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABUT 69 YEARS OCCUPATION - HOUSE WIFE R/A MALLESHAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KORAGATERE TAULK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. 2. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCCUPATION - HOUSE WIFE R/A MALLESHAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. 3. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40526 CRP No. 58 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCCUPATION - HOUSE WIFE R/A MALLESHAPRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KORTAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HANCHIHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATHI KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.01.2025, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2020 PASSED ON IA IN OS.No.29/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE,AND JMFC, KORATAGERE, DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. 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.H.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 2. Revision petitioner is the defendant who has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint in O.S.No.29/2019 on the ground - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40526 CRP No. 58 of 2021 that suit is barred by limitation. Said application is dismissed on contest. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the present revision petitioner is the purchaser of the suit property. He further contended that admittedly, suit came to be filed belatedly and therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint. 5. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the application on the ground that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore, plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. 6. This Court does not find any legal infirmity so as to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40526 CRP No. 58 of 2021 7. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. However, all favourable points that are available to the revision petitioner shall be urged in the pending suit in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33/CT: BHK