- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40448 CRP No. 346 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.346 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAKAMMA D/O MUNISHAMAPPA W/O CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. SRI.DEVARAJA C S/O CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT CHIKKASANDRA VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562114 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NARENDRA PRAKASH FOR SRI HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI. K C RAMESH S/O MUNIYAPPA @ CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KARAMANAGALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT PIN-563114. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SUNITHA P C, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.934/2023 ON THE FILE OF Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40448 CRP No. 346 of 2025 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE., REJECTING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) 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 Narendra Prakash R., appearing on behalf of Sri Hanumantharaya D., counsel for the petitioners and Smt. P.C.Sunitha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petition is filed by the defendant, challenging the rejection of the application filed under order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure by order dated 31.01.2025 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hosakote. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under. 3.1. A suit came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.934/2023 for specific enforcement of the agreement to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40448 CRP No. 346 of 2025 sell in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). SCHEDULE The land bearing Old Sy.No.78/P4, New Sy.No.78 to an extent 3 acres 20 guntas out of total extent of 177 acres 18 guntas situated at Chokkasandra village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. And the same is bounded on, East by : Mothakadhahalli Border West by : Bengaluru Kadapa Road North by : Shivaraju property South by : Chikkerappa Property 4. In the suit agreement, it was agreed by the defendants that necessary permission was to be obtained from the Government and survey sketch would be prepared and thereafter they would be obliged to register the sale deed in favour of the respondent. 5. The suit agreement is dated 16.03.2011. When there was no response from the defendants, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit after issuing necessary notice in the year 2023. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40448 CRP No. 346 of 2025 6. Written statement came to be filed along with application under Order VII Rule 11 contending that the suit is barred by limitation. 7. The learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff in regard to the said application noted that there was a duty cast on the defendants to intimate as to when they get the permission from the Government and when they were required to get the survey sketch done and later on call upon the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed. But, no such details are forthcoming on the part of the defendants and therefore suit filed is prima facie within time. Same is called in question in this revision petition. 8. It is always open for the petitioners to take the plea of limitation and necessary issues would be raised by the trial Court with regard to the limitation and parties can join the issue and lead necessary evidence on the said issue and it would be tried along with the other issues in the suit. 9. In every suit, question of limitation cannot be treated as a preliminary issue unless by mathematical precision, one can find out that the suit is barred by limitation in view of different provisions in the Limitation Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40448 CRP No. 346 of 2025 10. Thus, in the remaining suits, when the suit cannot be dismissed only by mathematical calculation in view of the provisions of Limitation Act, the trial has to be held and question of limitation cannot be treated as a preliminary issue to reject the plaint. 11. In the case on hand, the defence taken by the defendants in the light of the clauses in the suit agreement is a mixed question of law and fact which needs to be adjudicated by the trial Court in the trial as an issue. 12. Therefore, rejection of the application filed by the petitioners who are the defendants before the trial Court is just and proper which requires no interference. 13. Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR