- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100045 OF 2025 (CS-DAS) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 100058 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 100062 OF 2025 IN W.P NO.100045/2025 BETWEEN: 1. POORNIMA KESHAV GAONKAR AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. C/O. MAYUR NAYAK, #264, 16TH FLOOR, FLAT NO.2A, 16TH CROSS, 5TH PHASE, OPPOSITE TO SAI PUSHPANJALI KALYAN MANTAP, J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU. 78 2. GAJANAN @ GAJU KESHAV GAONKAR AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.4, KAMBAR GALLI, VTC, MALLAPUR S A, GHATAPRABHA, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591306. SUDHA KESHAV GAONKAR SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. MOHAN VENKANNA GAONKAR SINCE DECEASED. R/BY HIS LRS I.E. PETITIONER NOS. 3 AND 4 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 3. SHARMILA SHIVANAND NAYAK AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. THORAKE, GOKARNA, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581326. 4. VINUTHA BEERANNA GAONKAR, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 R/O. THORAKE, GOKARNA, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA -581343. 5. SAINATH KESHAV GAONKAR AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. THORAKE, GOKARNA, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581326. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. BASAVARAJ ALONG WITH SRI. VIJAY K NAIK, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. DWARKA SOUHARD CREDIT SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, K. C. ROAD, ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581314, R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (RULE-441), SOUHARD CO-OPERATIVE DAVA PANCHAYAT COURT, KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELAGAVI BENCH, 1119/B, KANABARGI INDUSTIAL AREA, NEAR RURAL AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, AUTO NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R2; SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 06-11-2024 in eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À/5230/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., IN W.P NO.100058/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SAINATH KESHAV GAONKAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. THORAKE, GOKARNA, TAL: KUMTA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581 326 2. GAJANAN @ GAJU KESHAV GAONKAR AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO. 4, KAMBAR GALLI, VTC, MALLAPUR S A, GHATAPRABHA, TAL. GOKAK DIST. BELAGAVI -591306. 3. POORNIMA KESHAV GAONKAR AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. C/O. MAYUR NAYAK, 264, 16TH FLOOR, FLAT NO. 2A, 16TH CROSS, 5TH PHASE, OPPOSITE TO SAI PUSHPANJALI KALYAN MANTAP, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. SUDHA KESHAV GAONKAR SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. HIS LRS I.E., PETITIONER NOS. 4 & 5. MOHAN VENKANNA GAONKAR @ NAYAK SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS LRS I.E., PETITIONER NOS. 4 AND 5. 4. SHARMILA SHIVANAND NAYAK AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MALALI, GOKARNA, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA -581326. 5. VINUTHA BEERANNA GAONKAR AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. HIREGUTTI, GOKARNA, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581343. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. BASAVARAJ SR. COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI. VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DWARKA SOUHARD CREDIT SAHAKARI NIYAMIT K.C. ROAD, ANKOLA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581314 R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (RULE-441), SOUHARD CO-OPERATIVE DAVA PANCHAYAT COURT, KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELAGAVI BENCH, 1119/B, KANABARGI INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEAR RURAL AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, AUTO NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R2; SRI. N.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 ) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 06-11-2024 IN eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À/2286/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. IN W.P NO.100062/2025 BETWEEN: 1. GAJANAN @ GAJU KESHAV GAONKAR AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.WARD NO.4, KAMBAR GALLI, VTC, MALLAPUR S A , GHATAPRABHA, TAL. GOKAK DIST. BELAGAVI 591306. 2. SAINATH KESHAV GAONKAR AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. THORAKE, GoKARNA, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA -581314. 3. POORNIMA KESHAV GAONKAR AGE. 66 YERS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. C/O. MAYUR NAYAK, #264, 16TH FLOOR, FLAT NO.2A, 16TH CROSS, 5TH PHASE, OPPOSITE TO SAI PUSHPANJALI KALYAN MANTAP, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. SUDHA KESHAV GAONKAR SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS MOHAN VENKANNA GAONKAR @ NAYAK SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS LRS I.E., PETITIONER NOS. 4 AND 5 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 4. SHARMILA SHIVANAND NAYAK, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. THORAKE, GOKARNA, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581326. 5. VINUTHA BEERANNA GAONKAR, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. THORAKE, GOKARNA, TAL, KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA -581343. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. BASAVARAJ SR. COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI. VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DWARKA SOUHARD CREDIT SAHAKARI NIYAMIT K C ROAD, ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581314 R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIE SOCIETIES (RULE 441), SOUHARD CO-OPERATIVE DAVA PANCHAYAT COURT, KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELAGAVI BENCH 1119/B KANABARGI INDUSTRIAL AREA NEAR RURAL AYURVEDIC COLLEGE AUTO NAGAR BELAGAVI 590015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. NANDINI SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 06-11-2024 IN eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À/2288/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: In 100045/2025 a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order of the Respondent No.2 dated 06-11-2024 in eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À/ 5230/2020-21 vide ANNEXURE-F. b) Grant any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. In 100058/2025 a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order of the Respondent No.2 dated 06-11-2024 in eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ. eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ. eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ. eÉ.Dgïr/PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À ¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À ¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À ¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À / 2286/2020-21 vide ANNEXURE-G. b) Grant any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. In 100062/2025 a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order of the Respondent No.2 dated 06-11-2024 in eÉ.Dgïr/ eÉ.Dgïr/ eÉ.Dgïr/ eÉ.Dgïr/ PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À PÀ.gÁ.¸Ë.¸ÀA.¸À/2288/2020-21 vide ANNEXURE-H. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 b) Grant any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard the learned senior counselor Sri. Basavaraj appearing for the petitioner, the counsel Sri. Narayan V. Yaji appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned AGA Smt. Nandini Somapur appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: 4. The petitioners are said to be borrowers from the hands of the first respondent-Dwarka Souhard Credit Sahakari Niyamith Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank;, for short). The petitioners in Writ petition Nos.100045/2025, 100058/2025 and 100062/2025 are said to have borrowed finance from the hands of the first respondent on different dates in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs.41,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/0, respectively. On the default of the petitioners in making the repayment of the loan amount, the bank is said to have instituted proceedings before the competent authority and now awards are passed against the petitioners. What brings the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 petitioners to this Court in the subject petition is the issue of limitation. 5. The learned senior counsel taking this Court through Section 40 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakara Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) also would seek to contend that, to file a claim petition on the default of the payment under Section 40 of the Act is 6 years. Admittedly, in the case at hand, for a loan borrowed in the year 2009 the proceedings are instituted in the year 2018. Therefore, it is beyond 6 years is his submission. The learned senior counsel submits that the 2nd respondent ought to have framed an issue with regard to limitation, as the limitation issue, in the case at hand, would cut at the root of the matter and, therefore, submits that the matter be remitted back to the hands of the 2nd respondent to frame an issue with regard to limitation, lead evidence and then proceed in the matter. To buttress his submissions, the learned senior counsel takes this Court through the documents appended to the memo that is filed to demonstrate that there are certain insertions into the loan document only to get over the plea of limitation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 6. The learned counsel Sri. Narayan Yaji appearing for the first respondent submits that the petitioners are in huge default. The default is not lakhs but it is to the tune of Rs.3 crores today. The petitioners have participated in all the proceedings and never raised an issue with regard to limitation. All the documents are marked in the proceedings with the consent of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners cannot now turn around and contend that the issue of limitation must be gone into. 7. The learned AGA also would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in seeking dismissal of the petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates and the link in chain of events are all a matter of record. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 10. The issue that brings the petitioner to this Court as noted hereinabove is the question of limitation. 11. Section 40 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakara Act, 1997, reads as follows: “40. Period of limitation.-(1) No dispute under Section 39 shall be entertained unless it is referred to the Registrar within six years from the date of the cause of action: Provided that a dispute relating to the Election of a Director, President or Chairperson, Vice-President or Vice- Chairperson, or other Office Bearers of the Board shall be referred to the Registrar within thirty days from the date of declaration of the result of the election: [Provided further a dispute relating to the disciplinary action against or service conditions of an employee shall be filed within a period of twelve months from the date of the order relating to such dispute.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), the Registrar may entertain a dispute referred after the period specified in sub-section(1) if he is satisfied that the person making the reference had sufficient cause for not making the reference within that period.” 12. For filing a claim by the lender i.e. the Bank for default of the borrower, the limitation prescribed under Section 40 of the Act, quoted supra, is 6 years. The loan is allegedly availed by these petitioners in the year 2009 and the proceedings are instituted in the year 2018 and in the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 companion petitions, the default of the loan is of the year 2012 and the proceedings are instituted in the year 2020. Therefore, admittedly on the sheer noting of the dates, the proceedings are instituted beyond the period of 6 years. If proceedings are instituted beyond the period of 6 years, it would be hit by limitation. 13. Though the plea of limitation, in the case at hand, would necessarily become a mixed question of law and facts, as the learned senior counsel seeks to place reliance upon plethora of documents to buttress his submission with regard to limitation, it becomes necessary for the second respondent to consider the issue of limitation in the light of the fact that it cuts at the root of the matter. 14. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that, the plea of limitation was never taken before the concerned authority at the inception, therefore, the said plea should not be permitted to be taken before this Court is noted only to be rejected, as the plea of limitation would touch upon the question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 would be, that a proceeding beyond 6 years cannot be instituted in terms of Section 40 of the Act. Therefore, the plea of limitation, in the case at hand, would cut at the root of the matter. If it cuts at the root of the matter, the very proceedings could not have sprung. Therefore, it becomes an issue of jurisdiction and an issue of jurisdiction can be raised before the final adjudication happens before the higher fora. Therefore, the second respondent ought to have framed an issue with regard to limitation which it has not done so. The second respondent shall now frame an issue with regard to limitation and pass necessary orders on the evidence that is let-in thereon and by regulating its procedure and take the issue to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed in part. ii. The impugned orders in all the petitions are quashed. The petitions are remitted back to the hands of the second respondent to frame the issue of limitation bearing in mind the observations made in the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17850 WP No. 100045 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100058 of 2025 WP No. 100062 of 2025 course of the order and pass necessary orders thereon by regulating its procedure. ii. All other contentions except the limitation shall remain open to be considered before the concerned authority, if any. iii. The proceedings now remitted shall conclude with an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Kmv CT:ANB