Karnataka High Court

Sri Kelachandra Joseph George vs Sri N R Ramesh on 10 September, 2025

                                            -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB
                                                     RFA No. 1443 of 2023


                   HC-KAR




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                          PRESENT

                          THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                                            AND

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                      REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1443 OF 2023 (RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                      SRI KELACHANDRA JOSEPH GEORGE
                      S/O SRI. KELACHANDRA CHACKO JOSEPH,
                      AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
                      RESIDING AT PENTHOUSE,
                      ST. ANDREWS BUILDING,
                      GOLF LINK SOFTWARE PARK,
                      INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD,
                      BANGALORE - 560 071.
                                                                ...APPELLANT

Digitally signed   (BY SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH         SRI. SANDEEP C.T, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   AND:

                      SRI N.R RAMESH
                      S/O SRI. NARAYAN RAJU,
                      AGED ABOUT MAJOR YEARS
                      EX-CORPORATOR, YEDIYUR WARD,
                      R/AT NO.2910, 14TH A CROSS,
                      BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
                      BANGALORE - 560 070.
                                                            ...RESPONDENT
                                     -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB
                                              RFA No. 1443 of 2023


HC-KAR




     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE
41 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 PASSED
ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.6055/2021 ON THE FILE OF IX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 7
RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 03.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                        CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff

challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.I filed

by the defendant i.e., the respondent herein under Order VII

Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6055/2021

before the IX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at

Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court", for

short) whereby, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.I and

consequently, rejected the plaint for want of cause of action

and as barred by limitation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiff filed a suit for an unconditional apology from

the defendant through media and for damages of Rs.1 Crore for

publishing defamatory imputation.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a Member of

the Indian National Congress Party as also a Member of

Karnataka Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing Sarvagna

Nagara, 160 Assembly Constituency. He was also a Minister for

Large and Medium Scale Industry, IT and BT, Science and

Technology and also Minister of Home Affairs, Government of

Karnataka and he is a dignified and respectable person

commanding great respect in the society.

5. It is further submitted that on the basis of a

complaint lodged by one Sri.P.Vasantha Kumar, Joint

Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force, Bangalore

("BMTF" for short), the BMTF registered a case against the

plaintiff in Crime No.62/2014 and on investigation by BMTF, a

'B' final report was filed in the said case and the same was

accordingly closed on 30.05.2017.

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

6. It is also contended that the defendant, being a

Former Corporator of Yediyur Ward in Bangalore City as well as

the Former opposition leader in the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike ("BBMP", for brevity), has wantonly and

falsely alleged that the plaintiff and Embassy Golf Link Tech-

Park Management have encroached 13 acres of Government

land. That the defendant has also filed a complaint with

Lokayuktha and the Anti-Corruption Bureau seeking a detailed

inquiry into the matter and also alleged that though the

Government has allotted 52.03 acres of land to Embassy, the

Embassy has fenced 65 acres of land, which worth about

Rs.850 Crores, which land was actually reserved for the

construction of houses for the poor. That the defendant has

also alleged that though Embassy had to pay annual tax of

nearly Rs.10 Crores or more for 4.5 lakhs sq.ft of land in

possession, they were paying tax only Rs.1.24 Crores, thereby

cheated the BBMP.

7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the

defendant not being satisfied with the aforesaid false and

mischievous complaint, again on 16/01/2018, he has lodged

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

another complaint to BMTF making similar allegations as made

before the Lokayuktha and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Thereafter,

the BMTF issued a police notice dated 17/07/2019 to M/s. Golf

Links Software Park Pvt. Ltd., with regard to the above subject,

to which, a reply was submitted by the plaintiff and the same

was ultimately closed based on the 'B' report filed in Crime

No.62/2014.

8. It was further contended that again the defendant

made false allegations against the plaintiff stating that he was

involved in a scam pertaining to Indiranagar, BDA and

Commercial Complex. The repeated false allegations made by

the defendant ultimately reveal the deliberate intention of the

defendant to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. Based on such

controversial allegations, the news clips were published on 8th

of December 2017, 11th of February 2018 and 19th July 2018,

by Times of India and Deccan Chronicle respectively, which

were uploaded to social media sites and the same were used

and shared by a large number of people in the Society, which

has ultimately resulted in a major derangement and has

directly and indirectly affected not only the political career of

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

the plaintiff, but also his personal and social life. Being affected

by the same, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.6055/2021.

9. After service of summons, the defendant appeared

through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the

plaint averments and also filed an application for rejection of

plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of

CPC. However, the said application was opposed by the plaintiff

by filing objections.

10. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the pleadings of the

parties as enumerated in the plaint, I.A.No.I and objections,

framed the following point for consideration:

"Whether the defendant has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application filed under order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC?"

11. 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 aforesaid point in

the affirmative and allowed I.A.No.I filed by the defendant and

rejected the plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action and as

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff

preferred the instant appeal.

12. Heard the learned Senior Counsel

Sri.K.N.Phanindra, for the plaintiff/appellant.

13. The primary contention of the learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that the Trial Court has

erroneously come to the conclusion that there is no cause of

action for the plaintiff to file the present suit and that the same

is barred by law of limitation. According to him, the prayer of

the plaintiff in the suit is nothing but a mandatory injunction

for which, as per provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, the time

for preferring an action is three years.

14. He further contended that though the imputation

published in the print media and electronic media in the year

2018, nevertheless, the defendant lodged several false

complaints against the plaintiff and his company in the year

2017 before the BMTF and also in the year 2018, which was

ultimately closed based on the 'B' report. Even after that the

defendant kept on making false imputations against the

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

plaintiff only to defame him in the eye of public. In such

circumstances, the act of the defendant is a continuous one

and as such, the legal notice was issued to the defendant on

06.09.2021 and the suit was filed in the year 2021. Hence, the

suit was filed well within time.

15. Additionally, he contended that as per settled

position of law in a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex

Court as well as this Court, limitation is a mixed question of

law and facts and is required to be adjudicated after a full

fledged trial.

16. Lastly, he contended that the Trial Court has failed

to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that

while rejecting the plaint, the Trial Court is duty bound to

consider the plaint averments alone and no other extraneous

factors can be taken into consideration. With this submission,

he prays to allow the appeal and restore the suit by setting

aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

17. Since this appeal arising out of the order passed on

the application filed Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC rejecting the

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

plaint, the same is heard at the stage admission without issuing

notice to the respondent.

18. As such, having heard the learned Senior Counsel

for the appellant/plaintiff, the sole point that arises for our

consideration is:

"Whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing I.A.No.II, thereby rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.519/2021 since the suit was barred by limitation and for want of cause of action?"

19. It could be gathered from records and it is the

specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant gave the press

conference which was telecast by the media houses on

08.12.2017, 18.07.2018 and again on 14.08.2018 at Hotel

VT Paradise, Bengaluru making false defamatory statement

against the plaintiff. Admittedly, no action has been taken by

the plaintiff till 06.09.2021 i.e., the date of issuance of legal

notice to the defendant. Though the plaintiff averred that even

after 2019, the defendant continued his act of making false

imputations against the plaintiff, no iota of material or

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

pleadings are forthcoming in the plaint to that effect. The

complaint lodged by the defendant against the plaintiff and his

company before BMTF were also in the year 2017 and 2018.

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant only for the

relief of an unconditional public apology through media and for

compensation of Rs.1 crore as damages. In such

circumstances, the limitation to file the suit has to be

considered as per Part VII of the Schedule of the Limitation Act

i.e., Article 75.

20. On perusal of Article 75, the limitation prescribed

for filing the suit for compensation for libel is one year from the

date when libel is published. Such being the position, the

plaintiff ought to have filed the suit in the year 2019. Even as

per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, i.e., a residuary Article in

the Limitation Act, which provides three years period of

limitation for suits not falling under any other category, the

limitation begins to run from the time when the right to sue

accrues. Even as per the said provision, the plaintiff ought to

have filed the suit on 14.08.2021 i.e., from 14.08.2018.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

However, the suit was filed on 11.11.2021. In such

circumstances, the suit is admittedly barred by limitation.

21. The contention of the appellant/plaintiff that the

prayer of the plaintiff in the suit is nothing but a mandatory

injunction for which, as per law of Limitation Act, 1963, the

time for preferring an action is three years, cannot be

considered for the reason that there is no specific prayer as

such in the plaint.

22. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for

the appellant that the limitation is a mixed question of law and

facts and that the same should be adjudicated after a full

fledged trial, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that

in the instant case when there is a specific prayer made by the

plaintiff for the relief of compensation for libel, the period of

limitation would be either under Article 75 of the Limitation Act

or under Article 113.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MADANURI

SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY V. SYED JALAL - (2017) 13 SCC

174, has observed and held that on reading of the allegations

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

made in the plaint as a whole, if they show on their face value,

that the suit is barred by any law, or they do not disclose cause

of action, the plaint can be rejected exercising power under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and that clever drafting of the plaint

to create an illusive cause of action should not come in the way

of the Court to nip in the bud such bogus litigation at the earlier

stage to put an end to the same. Paragraph No.7 of the said

judgment reads as under:

"7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and merit less in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the Court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be 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. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB

HC-KAR

the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage."

24. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the aforesaid case to the facts and circumstances of

this case, we are of the view that the suit is barred by

limitation and mere issuance of a legal notice in the year 2021

does not accrue a right to the plaintiff to file a suit. This aspect

of the matter has been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court.

Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court does not call for

any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the

point raised above is answered in the 'affirmative'.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35667-DB