- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36606 WP No. 25817 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 25817 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT SAUDAMINI, PLOT NO.2, SECTOR 29, GURGAON-122001, HARYANA. AND HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT 400/220 KV GIS SUB STATION, NEAR RTO TEST TRACK, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU 560064. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SMT JAYASREE T.J., W/O R SURESH NAIR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TAJI GEORGE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KEMPALAKSHMAMMA D/O.KERMPACHANNIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT BOMMANAHALLI BOODIHAL NELAMANGALA TALULK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562123. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24TH OF FEBRUARY 2025 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36606 WP No. 25817 of 2025 LEARNED IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU DISTRICT ON IA NO. 2, ANNEXURE-E2 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO. MISC. NO. 65 OF 2023 FILED UNDER SECTION 16(3) OF THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 24.02.2025 passed by IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, Rural District, Bengaluru, in Misc. no.65/2023 on I.A.no. II filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. Sri Taji George, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Government Corporation engaged in planning, implementation, operation and maintenance of inter-state electricity transmission network in India. As a deemed licensee under Section 14 of Electricity Act, 2003, it had taken up construction of 400KV Single Circuit transmission line from Gooty (Andhra Pradesh to Nelamangala in Karnataka. Said project was commissioned with effect from 01.05.2005 as per Notification at Annexure C. Despite same, nearly 18 years after date of commissioning, respondent claiming to be owner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36606 WP No. 25817 of 2025 of land over which transmission line had passed filed application for compensation under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, 'ACT') registered as Miscellaneous no.65/2023. 3. On receipt of summons, petitioner entered appearance and filed I.A.no.2 for rejection of petition as barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Though grounds urged in application were substantiated and it was apparent that respondent had by way of clever drafting avoided stating actual date of laying of transmission lines / commissioning of transmission lines, under impugned order learned District Judge rejected application without proper reasoning, leading to this Writ Petition. 4. It was submitted only reason assigned was that until compensation is paid to owners, it would be a continuing cause of action and that as per petition, petitioner herein had failed to pay compensation even after issuance of legal notice on 06.05.2022 and, therefore, petition filed on said cause of action would not be time barred. Though reasoning assigned by learned District Judge that until compensation is paid, it - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36606 WP No. 25817 of 2025 would be a continuing cause of action and would run counter to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P.Kunhaliumma reported in (1976)4 Supreme Court Cases, 634, it is settled position in law that while considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, Trial Court would be required to peruse only plaint/petition and documents filed along with it and nothing else. 5. In instant case, perusal of petition bearing Miscellaneous no.65/2023 at Annexure-E does not disclose that petitioner herein had laid transmission lines in year 2005. Apparently, petition is filed on cause of action that petitioner's herein had failed to respond to legal notice issued on 06.05.2022 and paid compensation. Petition filed on 17.04.2023 from said date would appear to be within time. Though petitioner herein seeks to contend that transmission lines were laid and commissioned in year 2005, as claimed in application, they are required to establish same by leading evidence. Therefore, order of Learned District Judge rejecting application can be sustained on said reasoning. It, however, requires to be clarified that Hon'ble Supreme Court in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36606 WP No. 25817 of 2025 T.P.Kunhaliumma's case (supra) has held limitation of three years under Article 137 of Limitation Act would apply for petitions filed under Section 16(3) of Act and it would be open for parties to lead evidence on limitation. With above clarification, Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22