- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 983 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT C T JAYASHREE AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS W/O LATE C.S.THIRUMALA IYENGAR 2. SRI.C.T.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE C.S. THIRUMALA IYENGAR, 3. SMT.PREMALATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O LATE C.S. THIRUMALA IYENGAR, W/O SRI M.N.RAJAGOPAL ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.19/36, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SRIPURAM LAYOUT, SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI RAMANJULY RAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE V.SUBBA RAJU R/AT NO.27/1, 47TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 BENGALURU-560 082 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU ALONG WITH SRI. SUNIL M.V AND VINAYAK KULKARNI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU. 5. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 6. 6(a) SRI.VENKATASWAMAPPA MAJOR IN AGE, S/O LATE POOJAPPA R/O KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL)TALUK-560 064. SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SMT. DODDABADRAMMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 6(b) 6(c) 6(d) 6(e) 6(f) 6(g) W/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SRI PUTTARAJU S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SRI. PUTTEGOWDA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SRI. VENKATAPPA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SRI. VASANTHA KUMAR S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SRI. SHANKAR S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA MAJOR IN AGE RESPONDENT NO.6(a) to 6(g) ARE RESIDING AT: KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK-560 064. 7. SMT.MUNIRATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O LATE MUTHAPPA, 8. SRI.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE MUTHAPPA, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 9. SRI.THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE MUTHAPPA, 10. SMT.VENKATALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O LATE MUTHAPPA, 11. SMT.CHANNAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/O LATE MUTHAPPA, RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK-560 064. 12. 12(a) 12(b) 12(c) 12(d) SRI.CHINNAPPA MAJOR IN AGE S/O LATE POOJAPPA, SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SMT. MUTHAMMA W/O LATE CHINNAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SMT. AKKAYAMMA D/O LATE CHINNAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SRI. MUNEGOWDA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI D/O LATE CHINNAPPA MAJOR IN AGE - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 12(e) 12(f) SMT. CHINAMMA D/O LATE CHINNAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE CHINNAPPA MOJOR IN AGE 12(f) (A) SRI S. GOPALAIAH S/O SHIVAM AGED 40 YEARS 12(f) (B) MASTER. PAWAN S/O SRI. S. GOPALAIAH AGED 13 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY SRI. S. GOPALAIAH 12(f) (C) MISS. PALLAVI S/O SRI. G. GOPALAIAH AGED 10 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY SRI. S. GOPALAIAH 12(f) (A), 12(f) (B) AND 12(f) (C) ARE RESIDING AT MUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE HESARAGATTA HOBLI RAJANAKUNTE POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 12(g) SMT. ANNAYAPPA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA MAJOR IN AGE - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 RESPONDENT NO.12 (a) TO 12(g) RESIDING AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK-560 064. 13. 14. SRI.MANJUNATH MAJOR IN AGE S/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA SRI. SURESH MAJOR IN AGE S/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA 15 SRI.SHIVARAJ MAJOR IN AGE S/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA 16. SMT.BHAGYAMMA MAJOR IN AGE D/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA 17. SMT.AKKAYAMMA MAJOR IN AGE D/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA RESPONDENTS NO.13 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK-560 064. 18. SRI.MUNI ANJANAPPA MAJOR IN AGE S/O LATE POOJAPPA, R/AT KATTIGENAHALI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK-560 064. 19. SRI.LOKANATHARAJU - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 MAJOR IN AGE S/O LATE VENKATARAJU, NO.3, BALAJI COMPLEX, R.T.NAGAR POST, P & T COLONY, BENGALURU-560 032 SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 19(a) LAKSHMI W/O LATE LOKANATHARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS (b) SMT. RAMYA D/O LATE LOKANATHARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS (c) SMT. CHAMPAKA D/O LATE LOKANATHARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS (d) SMT. RAVATHI D/O LATE LOKANATHARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL THE LR'S NO.19(a) TO 1(d) ARE R/O #32, 6TH MAIN ROAD K.H.M. BLOCK, GANGANAGARA BENGALURU-560 032. 20. SMT.K.SAROJAMMA MAJOR IN AGE W/O SRI.K.NAGARAJU R/AT NO.57/1 VASANTHAPPA GARDEN DOOPANAHALLI HAL II STAGE BENGALURU-560 008. 21. SRI.K.NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O KARPANNA R/AT NO.57/1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 VASANTHAPPA GARDEN DOOPANAHALLI HAL II STAGE BENGALURU-560 008 22. SRI.VARADARAJU MAJOR N AGE, S/O PERUMAL RAJU, C/O N.RAMARAJU, R/AT NO.44/51, 7TH MAIN 9TH CROSS, R.K.LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 061. 23. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, INDIAN OIL, BHAVAN, NO.29 P.KALINGA RAO ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. 24. M/S. OZONE SHELTERS (P) LIMITED NO.38, ULSOOR ROAD BENGALURU-560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.P.K.SRINIVASA RAO. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUNA G.R AGA FOR R1 TO R4, R5 AND R25 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED SRI. C.R NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6(a) TO (f) & R12 (a TO f) AND R12(f) (a TO c) SRI MURTHY .A, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R18 & ALSO R6(a TO g) & R12 (a TO g) VIDE ORDER DATED 17.12.2019, NOTICE TO R19 IS HELD SUFFICIENT SRI. H.S. SOMANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R20 & R21 SRI. SRIVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.M.NARAYANA SWAMY AND SRI. MOHAMMED AKHIL, ADVOCATE FOR CAV/R22, SRI. GURURAJ R, ADVOCAGE FOR R23) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.11 IN OS NO.431/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING IA NO.11 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) 1. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants- plaintiffs challenging the order dated 16.03.2018 passed in I.A.No.11 filed by defendant No.22 i.e., respondent No.22 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC in O.S.No.431/2012 before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court", for short) whereby, the Trial court allowed I.A.No.11 and consequently, rejected the plaint as the suit was barred by law of limitation and for want of cause of action. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to land bearing No.6/2 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas and measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, situated at Kattigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk mentioned in item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as "the suit schedule properties", for short). 4. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of one late C.S.Thirumala Iyengar. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the children of said late C.S. Thirumala Iyengar. Late C.S.Thirumala Iyengar was the son of late Srinivasa Iyengar. The said late Srinivasa Iyengar was an Inamdar of the Village "Kattigenahalli" Devanahalli Taluk, now at Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. 5. The suit schedule properties were Inam lands. One late Thola Bangaru Swamy Nayaka was the permanent tenant of the suit schedule properties including the entire village of the Kattigenahalli and he sold the suit schedule properties in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiffs vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.08.1969. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that there was a family partition among the family members of late Srinivasa Iyengar in the year 1951 and the suit schedule properties came to the share of late Srinivasa Iyengar. 7. Later, pursuant to the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act coming into force, late C.S.Thirumala Iyengar S/o late Srinivasa Iyengar made an application to the Competent Authority for re- grant of Inam lands in the village called Kattigenahalli with respect to Sy.Nos.91 and 97. The instant suit is in respect of Sy.No.91 (new Sy.No.6/2) i.e. the suit schedule properties. The said application made by late C.S. Thirumala Iyengar was registered before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in Case No.33/1959-60. Pursuant to the same, the Special Deputy Commissioner held an enquiry and after perusing all necessary documents held that late C.S.Thirumala Iyengar was an "occupant" of land and registered him as an "occupant". 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, registering C.S. Thirumala Iyengar as an occupant, revenue records were mutated in the name of late - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 C.S.Thirumala Iyengar. All of a sudden one Mr.Poojappa, S/o Thirumalappa i.e. the father of defendant Nos.6, 12 and 18 had made an application in respect of land bearing Sy.No.96 of Kattigenahalli Village, measuring 4 Acres. The Special Deputy Commissioner in case No.65/1959-60 passed order in respect of Sy.No.96 in favour of Poojappa and registered him as an occupant of Sy.No.96 (new Sy.No.6/1). 9. Further case of the plaintiffs is that they were cultivating the suit schedule properties through their agents and were in actual physical possession of the suit schedule properties. When they obtained the RTC pertaining to the suit schedule properties, all of a sudden they were shocked and surprised to see that Mr. Poojappa's name was entered in RTC with respect to suit schedule properties and his name was mutated vide M.R.No.23/79-80. 10. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the said Poojappa has no right, title or interest in respect of the suit schedule properties. The mutation entry bearing M.R.No.23/79- 80 was fraudulently entered in favour of Poojappa for illegal gain without any title or interest. It is pertinent to state here - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 that till the year 1991-92 RTC entries with respect to suit schedule properties was depicting the name of late Srinivasa Iyengar. The mutation entry of Srinivasa Iyengar was mischievously changed by the Revenue Authorities without following the due process of law. As such, immediately after the plaintiffs came to know about the change of mutation entries, they challenged the said entries before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru in Appeal No.RA(N)No.167/2002-03. However, the Assistant Commissioner directed the plaintiffs to approach the competent Civil Court by order dated 27.10.2004. 11. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the plaintiffs approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing a Revision Petition bearing No.RP.115/2006-07. The Deputy Commissioner on 09.02.2009 dismissed the Revision Petition upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 12. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, filed W.P.Nos.11773- 74/2009. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed on - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 13.01.2011. However, the plaintiffs were directed to work out their remedies by way of civil suit. Against the same, plaintiffs preferred W.A.Nos.4451-52/2011. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed on 20.03.2012 by affirming the direction of the learned Single Judge to the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court. Hence, the plaintiffs had approached the Trial Court by filing the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to suit schedule properties. 13. After service of summons, defendant Nos.7, 9 to 11, 15 to 18 and 22 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement. Defendant No.22 has filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC. However, the said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing objections. 14. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties as enumerated in the plaint, I.A.No.11 and objections, framed the following points for consideration: "Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as it barred by law of limitation and for want of cause of action?" - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 15. 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 above point in the affirmative and allowed I.A.No.11 filed by defendant No.22 and rejected as the suit that the suit is barred by law of limitation and for want of cause of action. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs preferred the instant appeal. 16. Heard Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants, Sri H.S.Somanath, learned counsel for defendant/respondent Nos.20 and 21, Sri.Srivatsa, learned Senior Counsel for defendant/respondent No.22 and the learned AGA for defendant/respondent Nos.1 to 4. 17. The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs is that the Trial Court has totally erred while allowing I.A.No.11 filed by defendant No.22 for rejection of plaint by misreading the factual aspects of the case, so also the settled position of law by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to dealing of application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 18. He further contended that the suit was filed well within time since father of defendant Nos.6, 12 and 18 illegally got entered his name in the revenue records in the year 1980 vide M.R.No.23/79-80 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs came to know about the same in the year 2002, immediately they approached the Assistant Commissioner for cancellation of the revenue entries and thereafter, they approached the Special Deputy Commissioner and this Court by filing Writ Petition and Writ Appeal. Though the prayer of the plaintiffs was rejected by the Revenue Authorities and by this Court, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing W.A.Nos.4451-52/2011, directed the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for the appropriate relief. Accordingly, they filed the suit in the year 2012. As such, the suit was well within time and the cause of action arose for the suit in the year 2012. This aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 19. Refuting the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.22/respondent No.22 vehemently contended that the Trial Court, after meticulously examining - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 the plaint, has rightly rejected the plaint since the suit was barred by law of limitation. He further contended that, in paragraph 12 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have admitted that they came to know the change of revenue records and mutation entries in the name of Mr.Poojappa way back in the year 2002 in respect of suit schedule properties and they have filed the present suit only in the year 2012. Further, the Sale Deeds of defendant No.19 were registered on 15.11.1996 and 16.11.1996 and the Sale Deed of defendant No.22 was registered on 15.11.1996 and it is apparent from the plaint that the plaintiffs had the knowledge of title and possession of the suit schedule properties by defendant Nos.19 and 22. 20. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that one of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs is for delivery of possession of the suit schedule properties. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity "the Act"), the suit for possession of immovable property is to be filed within 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs. As aforesaid, the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 in the year 1996 itself. But the present suit was filed by the plaintiff for delivery possession in the year 2012 i.e. after lapse 4 years of limitation period mentioned in Article 65 of the Act. 21. It is also contended that another relief claimed by the plaintiffs was for declaration in respect suit schedule properties, whereas under Article 58 of the Act, to obtain any declaration, the limitation is 3 years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Admittedly, with respect to declaration of suit schedule properties, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiffs in the year 2002 as admitted in paragraph 2 of the plaint. He also contended that the direction in W.A.Nos.4451-52/2011 cannot be construed as the delay in filing of the suit has been condoned, and a new cause of action has arisen to file the suit. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court as the suit was barred by law of limitation. As such, the order passed by the Trial Court does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the appeal. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing I.A.No.11, thereby rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.431/2012? 23. It could be gathered from records that the Trial Court while allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC primarily relied on the aspect that the suit was barred by limitation in view of admission of the plaintiffs in the plaint that they came to know about the revenue entries in the name of Poojappa way back in the year 2002 and even then, they kept quiet for a period of 10 years thereafter and filed the present in the year 2012 praying for declaration, possession and cancellation of Sale Deed. However, it is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that they were unaware about the revenue entries in the name of Poojappa in the year 1980 and they came to know about the same in the year 2002 and immediately they challenged the same before the Assistant Commissioner, Special Deputy Commissioner and by filing Writ - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 petition and Writ appeal before this Court. No doubt the claim of the plaintiffs in all these proceedings negated. However, in W.A.Nos.4451-52/2011, while dismissing the appeals, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under: "The order directing the appellants to work out their remedy before the Civil Court is just and proper and does not call for interference because the fact discloses that the appellant on the one hand and respondent No.10 and 11, on the other hand, claim rival title to the property. Upon establishment of title, naturally the mutation entry is to be effected in favour of successful party in the civil litigation. In that view, the appeal is dismissed. However, the levy of cost is set aside. Any observation made in the writ petition or by the revenue authorities need not influence the Civil Court in deciding title in respect of the land in question." 24. Such being the position, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY Vs. SYED JALAL - (2017) 13 SCC 174, since the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to exercise the power for rejection of plaint have to be - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 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. The question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 25. In the instant case, since the plaintiffs pleaded that they were unaware about the change of revenue entries in the name of Poojappa till the year 2002 and thereafter they immediately challenged the same and filed the suit in view of the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the plaint on the ground of limitation and want of cause of action. All the contentions urged by the parties have to be proved before the Trial Court in a full fledged trial. 26. In the result, we are of the view that the Trial Court has failed to consider the above aspects as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment while dealing with the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, interference in the impugned order is called for. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the “negative” and proceed to pass the following: - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41673-DB RFA No. 983 of 2018 ORDER 1. The Regular First Appeal is allowed. 2. The order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.11 filed in O.S.No.431/2012 by defendant No.22 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC is hereby set aside. 3. The suit in O.S.No.431/2012 is restored to its original file. 4. The parties shall mark their appearance before the Trial Court on 17.11.2025 without expecting any further notice. 5. The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the suit as early as possible and in accordance with the Karnataka (Case Flow management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005 outer of limit of 1 (one) year. 6. All the contentions of the parties are left open. 7. No order as to costs. All pending IA's shall stand disposed of. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42