- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49495 CRP No. 266 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 266 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. C.N. SHOBHA WIFE OF MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI. S. MANJUNATH SON OF LATE R.G. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 1771/78, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGARA, VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. S LOKESH PRABHU SON OF LATE R.G. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 310, 3RD BLOCK, 59TH CROSS, BASHYAM CIRCLE RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2024 PASSED ON IA IN OS NO.1925/2019 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49495 CRP No. 266 of 2024 AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., REJECTING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151 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.Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.R.B.Sadasivappa, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendants in O.S.No.1925/2019 are the revision petitioners challenging the validity of the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) dated 02.03.2024. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49495 CRP No. 266 of 2024 3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff against the revision petitioners with the following prayer: Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by way of: a. To direct the defendants to pay the damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) jointly and severally to the plaintiff in view of the defamatory statement urged in their objections statement dated 30.01.2018, filed before the Government authority against the plaintiff so as to tarnishing his image, status, reputation and character in the society in the interest of justice and equity. b. Pass such other suitable relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances demands in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice and equity. c. Award cost, advocate fees etc. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49495 CRP No. 266 of 2024 3.2. In the plaint, it is contented that Mr.R.G.Shankar, son of late Rudrappa, got a site allotted from the then CITB, now Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter ‘BDA’ for short), in the year 1970 through a registered deed. Residential address shown there that of G.Shankar was No.310, 3rd Block, 59th Cross, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10. 3.3. Plaintiff further contented that second defendant i.e., S. Manjunatha, who is the son of R.G.Shankar is a Government servant working as a Lecturer in Shri.Jayachamaraja Government (Evening) Polytechnic College, Bengaluru has got a BDA site on 25.01.1989 which was also registered in the Sub-Registrar Office. 3.4. Plaintiff further contented that defendant No.1 is working in LIC of India, Central Government and got allotted a BDA site on 13.03.2002 which is also registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49495 CRP No. 266 of 2024 3.5. Plaintiff further contented that he was given to understand that R.G.Shankar has executed a registered Gift Deed on 26.06.2013 in the respect of the property which is the western portion of the property bearing No.310 through a registered document and subsequently, defendant No.2 transferred the khata into his name. There are serious disputes as to the said Gift Deed and allotment of sites in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2. 3.6. In that regard, there were allegations and counter allegations and plaintiff contended that defamatory statements are made by the defendants against the plaintiff to the Special Task Force of BDA which made the plaintiff to file the suit. 4. Cause of action paragraph is at paragraph No.10. Same is extracted for ready reference: “10. The cause of action to this suit arose on 12.12.2017, when the plaintiff addressed the letter to Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka and again on 30.01.2019, when defendants filed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49495 CRP No. 266 of 2024 their objection statement making defamatory allegation against plaintiff and thereafter on 10.01.2019, when the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants and subsequently on 18.01.2019, when the defendants sent a reply notice are all within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.” 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. 6. It is also contented by the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation as to take action for the damages in respect of the defamatory statement is one year and when the statement was made to the Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, BDA even according to the plaint averments is on 30.01.2018, suit filed on 11.03.2019 is per se time barred and therefore, defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49495 CRP No. 266 of 2024 7. Plaintiff filed objections to the said application and learned Trial Judge by impugned order, dismissed the application of the defendants. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court, in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contented that in the case on hand, suit is barred by time is to be deduced by mathematical precision. Therefore, dismissal of the application seeking rejection of the plaint has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 10. Per contra learned counsel for the contesting respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49495 CRP No. 266 of 2024 12. On such perusal of the material on record, in the averments made in paragraph No.10, date of cause of action is wrongly mentioned as 30.01.2019 instead of 30.01.2018. 13. Further, legal notices were exchanged between the parties. Therefore, by mathematical precision, the question of limitation cannot be decided in the case on hand as cause of action and limitation in the case on hand is a mixed question of law and facts. 14. Ultimately, if the plaintiff fails and defendants are to succeed in establishing that the suit is vexatious, defendants can plead for costs including the exemplary cost as is contemplated under Section 35A of CPC. 15. With that liberty for the defendants, this Court is of the considered opinion that dismissal of the application does not require any interference by this Court in this revision. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49495 CRP No. 266 of 2024 16. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. All the favourable contentions of the defendants are kept open to be urged in accordance with law before the Trial Court. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54