- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50873 CRP No. 178 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 178 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: SMT. PUTTATHAYAMMA D/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT HEDTALE GRAMA, DODDAKAVALANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TOWN - 571 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PREREET B. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIJAYAKUMAR N.S, S/O N.C. SIDDAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NARASANNA AGRAHARA NANJANGUD TOWN - 571 301. 2. NANJUNDASWMAY S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT KUDALAPURA GRAMA, DODDAKAVALANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TOWN - 571 301. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50873 CRP No. 178 of 2023 3. RAJAMMA D/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT BHAJAGAYANNAHALLI, DODDAKAVALANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TOWN - 571 301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA T.P, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.151/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., NANJANGUD. DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Prereet B. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.P.Mahesha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Srinivasa T. P., learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. By the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50873 CRP No. 178 of 2023 3. Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.151/2021 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1. A suit came to be filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff in O.S.No.151/2021 for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell which was registered on 07.07.2010. 4.2. Sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid as advance amount and there was no response from the revision petitioner and therefore, suit came to be filed for specific enforcement. 4.3. Revision petitioner being defendant No.2, entered appearance and filed written statement and also application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC for dismissal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50873 CRP No. 178 of 2023 of the suit on the ground that agreement came to be entered on 07.07.2010 but the suit came to be filed in the year 2021 and therefore, per se suit is barred by limitation. 5. Said application was opposed by the plaintiff and learned Trial Judge by impugned order, dismissed the application. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 is before this Court, in this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that having regard to the date of agreement being 07.07.2010, a suit filed in the year 2021 is per se barred by limitation. 8. Therefore, Trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint and dismissing the application filed by defendant No.2 has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50873 CRP No. 178 of 2023 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that after the registered agreement came to be executed, the suit came to be filed by the family members of revision petitioner for partition and there was an order of injunction operating. As such, there was no question enforcing the agreement and therefore, suit came to be filed in the year 2021 after decree of the suit and therefore, rejection of the application is just and proper. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that defendant No.2 being the vendor of the agreement dated 07.07.2010, did not take any steps to either cancel the agreement or to execute the sale deed especially when there was a suit for partition filed by the family members against the revision petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50873 CRP No. 178 of 2023 12. Suit for partition came to be filed by other family members against the revision petitioner. Admittedly, plaintiff is not a party in the partition suit. Defendant No.2 who was also defendant in the said suit, did not choose to disclose the registered agreement to sell in the said suit. 13. All these aspects of the matter would go to show that defendant No.2 is somehow trying to avoid the specific enforcement of the agreement dated 07.07.2010 and in with direction, he has filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. 14. Taking note of the filing of the suit by the other family members of defendant No.2 and there was an injunction against defendant No.2 with regard to alienation of the suit property, suit having been filed by the plaintiff for specific enforcement after dismissal of the suit for partition filed by the family members of defendant No.2 is thus just and proper. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50873 CRP No. 178 of 2023 15. Moreover, question of limitation in the case on hand is a mixed question of law and facts having regard to the intervening circumstances. 16. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the application filed by defendant No.2 by the impugned order needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 17. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. Pending interlocutory applications are consigned to records. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22