- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46790 CRP No. 39 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 39 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI G PAPEGOWDA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.4, MIG IV PHASE YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU - 560 064 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S SAMPADA FINANCE CORPORATION @ A FIRM OF PARTNERS REGD OFFICE AT NO.379 KUNCHITIGARA STREET CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD CROSS CHAMRAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 571 313 COMPRISING OF PARTNERS 2. M MURALIDHARA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SON OF LATE M J JAKKAIAH NO 379 KUNCHITIGARA STREET CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD CROSS CHAMRAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 571 313 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46790 CRP No. 39 of 2023 3. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF LATE NAGANNA NO.809, 5TH MAIN II CROSS ARAVINDANAGARA MYSURU - 571 313 4. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI H R RAMARAJ RESIDING AT NO.734, EWS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU - 560 062 5. M AKASHDEEP AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SON OF SRI M MURALIDHARA NO.379, KUNCHITIGARA STREET CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD CROSS CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 571 313 6. M. VINAYDEEP AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON SRI M MURALIDHARA NO.379, KUNCHITIGARA STREET CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD CROSS CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 571 313 7. SRI M NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SRI M MAYANNAGOWDA NO.2052 /A, MOTHER DIARY CIRCLE YALAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU 64 …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46790 CRP No. 39 of 2023 (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.01.2023, NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 03.10.2023, NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.575/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU AND DISMISSING THE SAID APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Venkatesh C, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. First defendant in OS No.575/2017 is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the rejection - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46790 CRP No. 39 of 2023 of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said suit vide I.A.No.7. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under : 3.1 Plaintiff being the Partnership Firm represented by its' partners, filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S. No.575/2017 based on a market rate. 3.2 Defendant pursuant to the suit summons, entered appearance, filed written statement denying the plaint averments also raising the defence that the suit is barred by limitation. 3.3 Learned Trial Judge after considering the rival pleadings, raised necessary issues including the issue with regard to the limitation aspect as Issue No.4. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46790 CRP No. 39 of 2023 3.4 In the meantime, first defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that suit is per se barred by limitation and therefore plaint is to be rejected. 3.5 Same was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed objections. 3.6 Learned trial judge having heard the arguments of the parties dismissed the said application. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court in this revision. 5. Sri. C. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that per se the suit is barred by time and an issue is framed, and when the material on record including the plaint averments would be sufficient enough to reject the suit on the question of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46790 CRP No. 39 of 2023 limitation, directing the parties to face the trial has resulted in not only abuse of Court but also miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, Sri. Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents supports the impugned order. 7. Having heard the argument of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit is based on mortgage of the property by way of deposit of title deeds. In which case, the law of limitation is not three years as is contented by the counsel for the revision petitioner. 9. Anyway whether the suit is in time or not is a question that has been raised as an issue by the Trial Court based on the rival pleadings. The parties are required to face the trial and place necessary material - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46790 CRP No. 39 of 2023 evidence on record to decide whether the suit is within time or otherwise. 10. When there is a triable issue, the question of limitation especially with regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case cannot be treated as a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold. 11. Hence, following order: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT-SG