- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461582026 NC: 2026:KHC:42925 CRP No. 612 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.612 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. L. SATHYANARAYANA, S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 2. SOMPALLI VANAJA, W/O LATE S. JAYADEV, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT PLOT NO.105, ROAD NO.1, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANJAY H SETHIYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N. ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.457, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, GOVINDAPPA BADAVANE, AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 092. H. KRISHNAIAH SHETTY SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461582026 NC: 2026:KHC:42925 CRP No. 612 of 2026 2. H. K. MANJUNATHA SON OF H KRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 3. H. K. SURESH SON OF H KRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 4. H. K. MOHAN BABU SON OF H KRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5. H. K. DAYANAND SON OF H KRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.57/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, TATA SILK FARM, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004. 6. H. S. MANJUNATH SON OF SURESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 7. LAKSHMI DAUGHTER OF LATE ASHWATHNARAYAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 8. MANOHARA @ MALLAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE ASHWATHNARAYAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 9. NAGVENI DAUGHTER OF LATE ASHWATHNARAYAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 10. SAVITHRI - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461582026 NC: 2026:KHC:42925 CRP No. 612 of 2026 DAUGHTER OF LATE ASHWATHNARAYAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 11. MEENAKSHAMMA WIFE OF LATE H A SURESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 12. VISWANATH SON OF LATE H A SURESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT, SHANTHI NAGARA, 4TH WARD, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN 13. H. V. NATARAJ SON OF LATE H.P.D. VEERANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 14. H V NAGARAJ SON OF LATE H.P.D. VEERANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.13 AND 14 ARE RESIDING AT NO.2821, BESTARA PETE, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN 15. H V RADHA KRISHNA SON OF LATE H.P.D. VEERANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT GIFT CORNER, BESTARA PETE, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN 16. H S ANAND SON OF LATE H V SRIRAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 17. H S SATISH - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461582026 NC: 2026:KHC:42925 CRP No. 612 of 2026 SON OF LATE H V SRIRAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.16 & 17 ARE RESIDING AT SRIRAMA STORES, BESTARA PETE, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2026, PASSED ON IA NO.XII IN O.S NO.140/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.140/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, the petitioners/defendants are before this Court. 2. The respondents herein have filed suit for Specific Performance and also seek relief that the compromise decree is not binding on them. In that regard, an application was filed by - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461582026 NC: 2026:KHC:42925 CRP No. 612 of 2026 defendant Nos. 19 and 20, who are the purchasers, are seeking rejection of the plaint. It is the case of the petitioners that the plaint itself states that a notice was issued in 2012, that the Agreement of Sale is from 2007, and that, by the notice dated 05.01.2012, the Agreement of Sale was terminated. From 2012 to 2016, when the suit was filed, it is submitted that the suit is barred by limitation. Further, it is the case that by the date the suit was filed, a compromise decree had already been entered into between the parties, and the property had fallen to the share of defendant Nos.19 and 20, who are the vendors of the petitioners therein. The petitioners have not sought any damages, as specific performance cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and this aspect was not considered by the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court has rightly considered that there is a cause of action, that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and that there are no grounds to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the Court. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461582026 NC: 2026:KHC:42925 CRP No. 612 of 2026 4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court reveals that, except for relying on the provisions and stating that limitation is a question of fact and law, without considering the case of the defendant the trial Court dismissed the application. The particular submission with regard to the averment in the plaint about the notice issued by the defendants canceling the agreement of sale, and in the light of the very averments stated in the plaint, the Court ought to have considered the submissions raised by the petitioners. But unfortunately, in a mechanical manner, observing that it is a question of fact and law, the trial Court dismissed the application. 5. Considering the fact that all the contentions raised by the petitioners are not considered by the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. The order dated 03.06.2026, passed in I.A. No. 12 in O.S.No.140/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapura, - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010461582026 NC: 2026:KHC:42925 CRP No. 612 of 2026 is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. ii. The trial Court shall consider the application in light of the grounds raised by the petitioners. iii. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. iv. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69