- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3471 CRP No. 214 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 214 OF 2025 BETWEEN: LAKSHMAIAH S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NELAHALA VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572 128 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. S.AISHWARYA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T.R. RAVIKUMAR S/O.RANGANATH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARUTHINGARA, TUMAKURU-572103. 2. MANGALAMMA, D/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NELAHALA VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572 128 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.N.NITISH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3471 CRP No. 214 of 2025 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V IN OS.NO.21/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND VII JMFC AT TUMAKURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO. V FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.21/2020 on the file of the learned VI Additional Civil Judge and VII JMFC at Tumakuru, being aggrieved of the rejection of the application filed in I.A.No.V under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract i.e., the registered agreement - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3471 CRP No. 214 of 2025 of sale dated 15.09.2014. The suit was filed on 07.01.2020. An application in I.A.No.V was filed by defendant No.1 being the owner of the property under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC contending that there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is hit by the law of limitation. It was contented that when admittedly the agreement was entered into on 15.09.2014 and there was no periods specified for completion of the contract, the suit should have been filed within a period of three years from the date of the agreement. 4. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that as far back as 2015 the plaintiff was aware that the suit schedule property was notified for acquisition at the hands of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board for the formation of an industrial area. At any rate the suit cannot be decreed since the land is now acquired at the hands of the KIADB. 5. However, this Court finds that the Trial Court has accepted the contention of the plaintiff that when - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3471 CRP No. 214 of 2025 admittedly no time is fixed for completion of the contract, Article 54 of the Schedule in the Limitation Act would apply and the provision has been culled out in the impugned order. While considering the said provision, where it is clearly provided that for specific performance of contract if no date is fixed, the period of limitation will be three years from the date when the plaintiff has noticed that the performance is refused. The Trial Court has noticed the fact that in the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff issued notice to the defendants on 03.04.2017 and the defendants gave a reply on 25.07.2017. Going by the said admitted fact that a reply notice was given by the defendants refusing to accede to the request made in the notice, the suit is filed within the period of three years. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would therefore submit that there is no error that can be found in the impugned order. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3471 CRP No. 214 of 2025 considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly considered the provision of law applicable having regard to the facts averred in the plaint. When admittedly no time is fixed under the registered agreement of sale for completion of the contract, the trial Court is right in placing reliance on the provision of law viz., Article 54 of the Limitation Act and applying the facts as noticed in the plaint, the trial Court has rightly held that from the date of the reply notice given by the defendants i.e., 25.07.2017, the suit is filed within the period of three years. 8. Consequently, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL