Karnataka High Court
Shri K Shyam Singh S/O K Munipal Singh vs Sri B Y Jnaneshwara Singh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4914
CRP No. 100140 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100140 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHRI K. SHYAM SINGH S/O K. MUNIPAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SHOP AT: 12/170,
SHORAFF BAZAAR, ADONI-518301,
KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDRA PRADESH, AND ALSO AT #550, WARD NO.11,
NEAR VENKATANARASAPPA TEMPLE,
HAVANPETE, ADONI-518301,
KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VADIRAJA PADAKANDLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI B.Y. JNANESHWARA SINGH,
S/O B.R. YOGEENDRANATH SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.69/25,
1ST CROSS, SUMUKHA BUILDING, TILAK NAGAR,
CHANDRASHEKAR
CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583101.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
...RESPONDENT
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
(BY SRI HR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.04 06:18:23
+0100
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC
1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM BALLARI ON IA NO.5/2024 IN OS NO.181/2024, TO MEET
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4914
CRP No. 100140 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 15.07.2025 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari1 in OS no.181/2024 on IA No.5 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 19082, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri P. Vadiraja, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petition was by defendant in suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money. In said suit defendant had filed written statement and thereafter, filed IA no.5 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of plaint as suit filed without cause of action and also barred by limitation. It was submitted though contentions were substantiated, under impugned order, Trial Court rejected application without proper appreciation which calls for revision.
3. It was submitted, suit claim was based on assertion about lending of money by plaintiff to defendant which began as early as 14.06.2012. It was submitted, suit for recovery of money ought to have been filed within three years from date of 1 For short, 'Trial Court' 2 For short, 'CPC' -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4914 CRP No. 100140 of 2025 HC-KAR lending. Only to render suit within a period of limitation, certain recent transactions were shown. It was submitted where suit claim appeared beyond period of limitation, it was incumbent on plaintiff to offer explanation as to how suit was within period of limitation.
4. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad and Ors.3, it was submitted if plaintiff were to assert acknowledgment of debt by defendant, same was required to be specifically pleaded and acknowledgment required to be in writing, unlike in instant case. Therefore, suit was filed without subsisting cause of action and was barred by limitation. Rejection of application by Trial Court with observation that some part of suit claim was apparently within period of limitation and partial rejection was not permissible and that plaint disclosed clear cause of action would be contrary to record and sought for allowing revision.
5. On other hand, Sri HR Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff opposed petition. It was submitted question of suit being barred by limitation would be a mixed 3 AIR 1951 SC 477 -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4914 CRP No. 100140 of 2025 HC-KAR question of law and fact and would require trial. It was submitted as rightly observed, it would be impermissible for Trial Court to hold a part of suit claim as barred by limitation at stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. At best issue of limitation could be tried as a preliminary issue if specific issue regarding limitation has been framed. In view of above, rejection of application by Trial Court was in accordance with law and there were no grounds to entertain revision petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned order as well as material on record.
7. This revision petition is by unsuccessful defendant in suit for recovery of money on an application for rejection of plaint. Though perusal of plaint indicates that, transaction of lending money between plaintiff and defendant began as early as on 14.06.2012 and continued till 30.10.2023, whether suit claim would be barred by limitation would be a matter for trial, as it is a mixed question of law and fact.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4914 CRP No. 100140 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors.4, has held partial rejection of suit claim would not be justified on application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Trial Court also observed that plaintiff has pleaded transaction between lender and borrower were continuous transaction and failure by defendant to repay amount on demand was cause of action for suit would satisfy requirements of law. Said observations do not call for interference at this stage and would be matter of trial.
9. In view of above, no grounds for revision are established. Revision petition is dismissed with liberty to urge said grounds after trial.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE SMM, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 50 4 (2004) 3 SCC 137