- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1443 OF 2023 (RES) BETWEEN: SRI KELACHANDRA JOSEPH GEORGE S/O SRI. KELACHANDRA CHACKO JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT PENTHOUSE, ST. ANDREWS BUILDING, GOLF LINK SOFTWARE PARK, INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 071. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP C.T, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI N.R RAMESH S/O SRI. NARAYAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT MAJOR YEARS EX-CORPORATOR, YEDIYUR WARD, R/AT NO.2910, 14TH A CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 41 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.6055/2021 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.I filed by the defendant i.e., the respondent herein under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6055/2021 before the IX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court", for short) whereby, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.I and consequently, rejected the plaint for want of cause of action and as barred by limitation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The plaintiff filed a suit for an unconditional apology from the defendant through media and for damages of Rs.1 Crore for publishing defamatory imputation. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a Member of the Indian National Congress Party as also a Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing Sarvagna Nagara, 160 Assembly Constituency. He was also a Minister for Large and Medium Scale Industry, IT and BT, Science and Technology and also Minister of Home Affairs, Government of Karnataka and he is a dignified and respectable person commanding great respect in the society. 5. It is further submitted that on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri.P.Vasantha Kumar, Joint Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force, Bangalore ("BMTF" for short), the BMTF registered a case against the plaintiff in Crime No.62/2014 and on investigation by BMTF, a 'B' final report was filed in the said case and the same was accordingly closed on 30.05.2017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 6. It is also contended that the defendant, being a Former Corporator of Yediyur Ward in Bangalore City as well as the Former opposition leader in the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ("BBMP", for brevity), has wantonly and falsely alleged that the plaintiff and Embassy Golf Link Tech- Park Management have encroached 13 acres of Government land. That the defendant has also filed a complaint with Lokayuktha and the Anti-Corruption Bureau seeking a detailed inquiry into the matter and also alleged that though the Government has allotted 52.03 acres of land to Embassy, the Embassy has fenced 65 acres of land, which worth about Rs.850 Crores, which land was actually reserved for the construction of houses for the poor. That the defendant has also alleged that though Embassy had to pay annual tax of nearly Rs.10 Crores or more for 4.5 lakhs sq.ft of land in possession, they were paying tax only Rs.1.24 Crores, thereby cheated the BBMP. 7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant not being satisfied with the aforesaid false and mischievous complaint, again on 16/01/2018, he has lodged - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 another complaint to BMTF making similar allegations as made before the Lokayuktha and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Thereafter, the BMTF issued a police notice dated 17/07/2019 to M/s. Golf Links Software Park Pvt. Ltd., with regard to the above subject, to which, a reply was submitted by the plaintiff and the same was ultimately closed based on the 'B' report filed in Crime No.62/2014. 8. It was further contended that again the defendant made false allegations against the plaintiff stating that he was involved in a scam pertaining to Indiranagar, BDA and Commercial Complex. The repeated false allegations made by the defendant ultimately reveal the deliberate intention of the defendant to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. Based on such controversial allegations, the news clips were published on 8th of December 2017, 11th of February 2018 and 19th July 2018, by Times of India and Deccan Chronicle respectively, which were uploaded to social media sites and the same were used and shared by a large number of people in the Society, which has ultimately resulted in a major derangement and has directly and indirectly affected not only the political career of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 the plaintiff, but also his personal and social life. Being affected by the same, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.6055/2021. 9. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and also filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC. However, the said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. 10. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties as enumerated in the plaint, I.A.No.I and objections, framed the following point for consideration: "Whether the defendant has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application filed under order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC?" 11. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on assessment of oral submissions and documents placed by both the parties, the Trial Court answered the aforesaid point in the affirmative and allowed I.A.No.I filed by the defendant and rejected the plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action and as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred the instant appeal. 12. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.N.Phanindra, for the plaintiff/appellant. 13. The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that the Trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit and that the same is barred by law of limitation. According to him, the prayer of the plaintiff in the suit is nothing but a mandatory injunction for which, as per provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, the time for preferring an action is three years. 14. He further contended that though the imputation published in the print media and electronic media in the year 2018, nevertheless, the defendant lodged several false complaints against the plaintiff and his company in the year 2017 before the BMTF and also in the year 2018, which was ultimately closed based on the 'B' report. Even after that the defendant kept on making false imputations against the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 plaintiff only to defame him in the eye of public. In such circumstances, the act of the defendant is a continuous one and as such, the legal notice was issued to the defendant on 06.09.2021 and the suit was filed in the year 2021. Hence, the suit was filed well within time. 15. Additionally, he contended that as per settled position of law in a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and is required to be adjudicated after a full fledged trial. 16. Lastly, he contended that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while rejecting the plaint, the Trial Court is duty bound to consider the plaint averments alone and no other extraneous factors can be taken into consideration. With this submission, he prays to allow the appeal and restore the suit by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. 17. Since this appeal arising out of the order passed on the application filed Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC rejecting the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 plaint, the same is heard at the stage admission without issuing notice to the respondent. 18. As such, having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the sole point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing I.A.No.II, thereby rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.519/2021 since the suit was barred by limitation and for want of cause of action?" 19. It could be gathered from records and it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant gave the press conference which was telecast by the media houses on 08.12.2017, 18.07.2018 and again on 14.08.2018 at Hotel VT Paradise, Bengaluru making false defamatory statement against the plaintiff. Admittedly, no action has been taken by the plaintiff till 06.09.2021 i.e., the date of issuance of legal notice to the defendant. Though the plaintiff averred that even after 2019, the defendant continued his act of making false imputations against the plaintiff, no iota of material or - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 pleadings are forthcoming in the plaint to that effect. The complaint lodged by the defendant against the plaintiff and his company before BMTF were also in the year 2017 and 2018. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant only for the relief of an unconditional public apology through media and for compensation of Rs.1 crore as damages. In such circumstances, the limitation to file the suit has to be considered as per Part VII of the Schedule of the Limitation Act i.e., Article 75. 20. On perusal of Article 75, the limitation prescribed for filing the suit for compensation for libel is one year from the date when libel is published. Such being the position, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit in the year 2019. Even as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, i.e., a residuary Article in the Limitation Act, which provides three years period of limitation for suits not falling under any other category, the limitation begins to run from the time when the right to sue accrues. Even as per the said provision, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit on 14.08.2021 i.e., from 14.08.2018. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 However, the suit was filed on 11.11.2021. In such circumstances, the suit is admittedly barred by limitation. 21. The contention of the appellant/plaintiff that the prayer of the plaintiff in the suit is nothing but a mandatory injunction for which, as per law of Limitation Act, 1963, the time for preferring an action is three years, cannot be considered for the reason that there is no specific prayer as such in the plaint. 22. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and that the same should be adjudicated after a full fledged trial, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that in the instant case when there is a specific prayer made by the plaintiff for the relief of compensation for libel, the period of limitation would be either under Article 75 of the Limitation Act or under Article 113. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY V. SYED JALAL - (2017) 13 SCC 174, has observed and held that on reading of the allegations - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 made in the plaint as a whole, if they show on their face value, that the suit is barred by any law, or they do not disclose cause of action, the plaint can be rejected exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and that clever drafting of the plaint to create an illusive cause of action should not come in the way of the Court to nip in the bud such bogus litigation at the earlier stage to put an end to the same. Paragraph No.7 of the said judgment reads as under: "7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and merit less in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the Court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage." 24. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the suit is barred by limitation and mere issuance of a legal notice in the year 2021 does not accrue a right to the plaintiff to file a suit. This aspect of the matter has been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the point raised above is answered in the 'affirmative'. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB RFA No. 1443 of 2023 All pending I.As. also stand disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2