- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52784 CRP No. 420 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 420 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: MALLESHAPPA S/O M CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURIST, R/A SHANKARIKOPPALU VILLAGE, KARIKERE MAJARE, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR G M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A V RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O LATE VADDAGALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC :AGRICULTURIST, R/A ANCHEKOPPALU VILLAGE, KARIKERE, MAJARE, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572 201 2. D L KAMALAKSHMAMMA W/O M CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURIST, R/A SHANKARIKOPPALU VILLAGE, KARIKERE MAJARE, KASABA HOBLI, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52784 CRP No. 420 of 2024 TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M D KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 -SERVED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.383/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, TIPTUR, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 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 G.M., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.D. Krishnappa, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.383/2023 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under : - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52784 CRP No. 420 of 2024 4. A suit in O.S.No.383/2023 is filed with the following prayer in respect of the following immobile property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property): “Wherefore the plaintiffs prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiffs as follows: a) To direct the defendants to come and execute the registered sale deed in respect of schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dated 22.4.2015 by producing the necessary documents. b) Failing which the Hon'ble court may be pleased to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff through process of this Hon'ble court. c) And grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case including the costs of this suit in the interest of justice and equity.” SCHEDULE “All that part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.237/4, old No.237, measuring to the extent of 1 acre 39 guntas situated at Karikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur, bounded on the : - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52784 CRP No. 420 of 2024 East by : Survey No. 210 Land West by : Gandasi Road North by : Giddamma's land South by : A.B Umesh S/o Vaddagalle Gowda & Shankarappa S/o Bhandaiah's Land” 5. Agreement to sell entered into by the plaintiff is not in dispute. But suit was opposed on the ground that suit is barred by limitation. 6. Admittedly, the agreement to sell is dated 05.08.2002. When the said agreement was not enforced, another agreement came to be executed on 22.04.2015 including the clauses in the earlier agreement. 7. Again in respect of the said agreement, the parties did not move further. Ultimately, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific enforcement of agreement to sell in the year 2023. 8. Cause of action is mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint which reads as under: “8. The cause of action for the suit arose on when the deceased M.Chandrashekaraiah entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property and thereafter when the received the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52784 CRP No. 420 of 2024 when the said M.chandrashekraiah expired on 31.8.2008 leaving behind the defendants to succeed his estate and also pias obligations, casted on defendants and further the defendants come forward and entered into agreement of sale dated 22.4.2015 and received the full sale consideration amount of Rs.2,89,930/- and agreed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property and when the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and on 17/7/2023 when the plaintiff got issued the legal notice to the defendants. There after when the defendants failed to comply with the reasonable demand of the plaintiff is well within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.” 9. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and defendant No.2 filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 contending that suit is per se barred by limitation as it is filed in the year 2023 and agreement sale is of the year 2015. 10. Learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 is before this court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52784 CRP No. 420 of 2024 12. Sri Chandrasekhar G.M., learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that approach of the trial Court in dismissing the application by not appreciating the fact that suit is per se barred by limitation has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff supports the impugned order. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, it is no doubt true that the second agreement came to be executed on 22.04.2015. 15. To urge that the suit is barred by limitation, there is no positive action on the part of the defendants in respect of the agreement by issuing the notice and terminating the contract. 16. In other words, though the clauses mentioned in the agreement would stipulate the time for completion of contract, in the light of both parties not enforcing their - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52784 CRP No. 420 of 2024 respective rights, the time cannot be treated as essence of the contract in the case on hand. 17. As such, the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which needs to be adjudicated in a full- fledged trial. 18. Hence, rejection of the application by the trial Judge is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision petition. 19. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) All the contentions are kept open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR