Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Electronics ... vs Micronova Impex Private Limited on 25 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48762
WP No. 7694 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 7694 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS
DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD.
A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
UNDERTAKING AND A COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR
TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC COMPLEX
SHANTHINAGAR K H ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY MS. HARINAXI T.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NISHANTH A.V, ADV.)
AND:
MICRONOVA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED
Digitally A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
signed by
NANDINI M S THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
Location: REGISTERED OFFICE HAVING ITS
HIGH COURT REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.43
OF
KARNATAKA WAT STREET, BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RAJASHREE B, ADV.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 06/03/2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 4 IN COM OS NO. 651/2023
BY THE HONBLE LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-85), VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48762
WP No. 7694 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant is before this Court in this writ petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer
to set aside the order dated 06.03.2024 passed on IA No.IV in
Commercial O.S.No. 651 of 2023 by the Court of LXXXIV Addl.
City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties.
3. Respondent herein has filed Commercial
O.S.No.651 of 2023 before the jurisdictional commercial Court,
Bengaluru against the petitioner herein with a prayer to direct
the defendant to pay an amount of ₹.11,65,074/- with interest.
In the said suit, the defendant / petitioner herein has entered
appearance and has filed his written statement denying the suit
claim. When the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of
PW1, application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC
was filed on behalf of the defendant to reject the plaint on the
NC: 2025:KHC:48762
HC-KAR
ground that there was no cause of action for filing the suit and
the suit was barred by limitation. The said application was
opposed by the plaintiff by filing objection. The trial Court vide
the order impugned has rejected IA No.IV filed on behalf of the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. Being
aggrieved by the same, petitioner / defendant is before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated
the grounds urged in the petition submits that plaint averments
itself would go to show that suit is barred by limitation. There
was no cause of action for filing the suit. The trial court has
failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in
rejecting the I.A.No.IV. He has placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRI MUKUND
BHAVAN TRUST AND OTHERS V. SHRIMANTH
CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ
BHONSLE AND ANOTHER - (2024) 15 SCC 675 and submits
that when it is evident from the plaint averments that suit is
hopelessly barred by limitation, plaint needs to be rejected.
NC: 2025:KHC:48762
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has
argued in support of the impugned order and submits that as
per the averments found in the plaint, the suit is not barred by
limitation. While considering an application under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC, only the plaint averments needs to be
considered. It is trite that question of limitation is a mixed
question of law and facts, which is required to be decided based
on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The
Trial Court was therefore justified in rejecting the application.
He submits that suit is at the stage of cross-examination of
PW1 and the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit
as expeditiously as possible.
6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show
that, that suit in Com.O.S.No.651 of 2023 is filed by the
respondent herein before the jurisdictional commercial Court at
Bangalore with a prayer to direct the defendant to pay an
amount of ₹.11,65,074/- with interest. According to the
plaintiff, there was a memorandum of understanding entered
into between the parties in the year 2008 and the plaintiff had
carried out data entry work for defendant and had raised
NC: 2025:KHC:48762
HC-KAR
invoices subsequently and in the plaint it is averred that
defendant had indicated receipt of payment in the month of
August 2022 and thereafter a demand was made for payment
of amount due from defendant by issuing legal notice and since
the defendant had failed to pay the amount due, the suit was
filed.
7. From the aforesaid averments found in the plaint it
cannot be said that prima facie from the averments found in
the plaint itself, the suit is barred by limitation. At the stage of
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the
Court is only required to go by the averments found in the
plaint and cannot subtract or add anything to the same.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SALIM d
AGBOATWALA & OTHERS V SHAMALJI ODDHAVJI
THAKKAR & OTHERS - (2021) 17 SCC 100, has held that
the question of limitation is a triable issue and the suit cannot
be dismissed at threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, in
such cases. In the said case, it is also observed that if a party
succeeds in establishing on evidence, date of gaining
knowledge, period of limitation will start running from that date
NC: 2025:KHC:48762
HC-KAR
and question to exercise power of limitation must be decided on
that basis. For the purpose of exercising the power of rejection
of plaint on the ground of limitation the conditions precedent
are very stringent and only in exceptional cases where the
averments found in the plaint itself would go to show that suit
is barred by limitation then in the said event, plaint can be
rejected on the ground of limitation.
9. In the case of SRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where it is
evident from the plaint averments that suit is hopelessly barred
by limitation, then the plaint can be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC, irrespective of the fact that issue of limitation is
generally a question of fact and law and has to be decided after
weighing the evidence.
10. In the case on hand, plaint averment itself does not
make it very clear that the suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation. It is for the plaintiff to produce necessary materials
before the trial court to explain that the suit is in time. The
application in the present case has been filed after the
examination-in-chief of PW1 was completed and when the suit
NC: 2025:KHC:48762
HC-KAR
was at the stage of cross-examination of PW1. Undisputedly,
the trial Court has raised an issue with regard to limitation in
the present suit and plaintiff has already led his evidence on
the said issue and now the defendant is required to cross-
examine PW1. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter
has rightly rejected I.A.No.IV filed on behalf of the defendant.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said
order.
11. Accordingly the following:-
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) It is needless to state that trial Court shall
make endeavours to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible.
Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and
accordingly the same are disposed of.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
