[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
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
For short, 'Trial Court'
For short, 'CPC'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4914
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
AIR 1951 SC 477
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4914
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4914
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
(2004) 3 SCC 137
