- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2937 CRP No. 100179 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100179 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. Y. NAGI REDDY, S/O. LATE S. BHEEMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT SANGANAKAL VILLAGE, BELLARY - 583103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAKSHIT K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. Y. NARAYANA REDDY S/O. LATE S BHEEMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT BEECHINAGAR 1ST CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI 583103. 2. THE SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYATH, SANGANKAL VILLAGE, BALLARI - 583103. 3. SRI Y.N. RAGHUNATHA REDDY S/O. NAGIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, SANGANKAL VILLAGE, BALLARI - 583103. 4. SRI. Y. N. HARISH REDDY S/O. Y. NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, SANGANKAL VILLAGE, BALLARI 583103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 & R4 – NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT) V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.17 11:49:13 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2937 CRP No. 100179 of 2023 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT BELALRY IN OS NO.670/2010 AND EXAMINE THE LEGALITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2023 PASSED ON IA NO. XIX PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ALLOW I.A. NO. XIX AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE PLAINT OF THE SUIT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed by defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 31.10.2023 in O.S.No.670/2010 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari1. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking relief of declaration with consequential reliefs and suit is contested by the defendants by filing written statement. Defendant No.1 has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2937 CRP No. 100179 of 2023 is barred by time. The said application was contested by the plaintiff. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 31.10.2023 dismissed I.A.No.19 and feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has preferred this revision petition. 4. I have heard Sri.Rakshit K.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Prashant Mathapati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No.1 is aware about the relinquishment deed and the sale deed said to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2937 CRP No. 100179 of 2023 have been executed by him and therefore the suit itself is not maintainable. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration with consequential relief and defendant No.1 has contended in I.A.No.19 that the suit is barred by time. Taking into consideration of the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Trial Court at para No.21 of the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19