[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr V P Yacob Son Of Mr vs Paily V/S M/S Xindia Steels Limited on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
CRP No. 100102 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100102 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. V.P. YACOB SON OF MR. V.S. PAILY,
AGE. MAJOR, R/AT VALLITHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
KUNDAKAD POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
KERALA-680 028.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S GPA HOLDER
BLASSEN P. ISSY S/O SRI ISSY MARKOSE,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT AND
SRI SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
M/S XINDIA STEELS LIMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
THE FACTORY PREMISES,
HIREBAGANAL AND KUNIGERI VILLAGES,
Digitally signed by POST: GINIGERA, KOPPAL TALUK,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 225.
KATTIMANI
Location: High REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, MR. VIJAY UMMI, S/O YALLAPPA UMMI,
Dharwad
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O HOSAPETE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.3/2024 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT KOPPAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.07.2025
IN IA NO.2 UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(C) AND (D) READ WITH SECTION
151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN O.S.NO.3/2024 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., AT KOPPAL BY ALLOWING THE IA NO.II
BY REJECTING THE PLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY &
ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
CRP No. 100102 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 30.07.2025 passed by Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Koppal on IA no.II in OS no.3/2024, this petition
is filed.
2. Heard elaborate submissions of Sri Ganapati Bhat,
learned counsel for petitioner (defendant in suit), which was
studded with renowned citations impugning order passed by Trial
Court. It was submitted, respondent herein filed OS no.3/2024
seeking for money decree to tune of Rs.132,74,82,123/- with
interest at 9% per annum etc. In said suit, defendant filed
written statement as well as IA no.II under Order VII Rule 11 (c)
and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) for
rejection of plaint on ground that suit was barred by limitation
and on ground of non payment of proper court fee on relief
claimed.
3. It was submitted, in affidavit filed in support of
application, it was pointed out that last money transaction
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
HC-KAR
pleaded in plaint was 16.10.2014. Even Annexure-I, appended to
plaint showed last transaction between parties was on
16.10.2014. Consequently, suit would barred by limitation. In
support of submission, learned counsel relied upon decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dahiben v. Aravindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali,1 ('Dahiben'); Raghwendra Sharan
Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh2 ('Raghwendra') and of this
Court in M/s. Metropoli Overseas Limited v. Sri HS
Deekshit3 ('Metropoli'). Relying upon decision in case of Sant
Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad and Ors4 ('Sant Lal Mahton').
It was submitted even where extension of period of limitation
could be pleaded, it was submitted, plaintiff had not pleaded
about any acknowledgment by defendant to render suit within
time. Further relying upon decision in case of Shri Mukund
Bhavan Trust and Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan
Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Anr.5 ('Mukund
Bhavan Trust'). It was submitted, there would be no
(2020) 7 SCC 366
2020 (16) SCC 601
CRP no.307/2020 [NC:2021:KHC:35062]
1951 SCC 1008
(2024) 15 SCC 675
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
HC-KAR
justification for plaintiff to contend that question of limitation
would be a mixed question of law and fact and required trial,
since according to defendant, suit being barred by limitation was
ex-facie. It was submitted, under above circumstances, Courts
were under obligation to examine plea under Order VII Rule 11
of CPC carefully and nip in bud frivolous litigation. Based on
above submissions, it was contended Trial Court erred in not
exercising jurisdiction vested in it and prayed for allowing
revision and rejection of plaint.
4. On other hand, Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for
respondent opposed petition.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order.
6. This revision petition is by defendant challenging
rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11(c) and (d) of
CPC. Sole ground urged is failure to exercise jurisdiction vested
in Trial Court to reject plaint on ground of bar of limitation.
7. At outset, there can be no opinions about jurisdiction
as well as obligation cast on Trial Court on filing of an application
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
HC-KAR
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. As per decisions in Dahiben, Sant
Lal Mahton, Raghwendra, Mukund Bhavan Trust and
Metropoli (supra), Court would require to ascertain on a
meaningful and complete of plaint, even if defence of suit being
barred by period of limitation were taken or not, to examine
same. And in case, suit was found to be ex-facie time-barred,
dismiss suit by nipping it in bud. It is also seen that on said sole
ground, IA no.II was filed.
8. Perusal of copy of plaint produced as Annexure-B to
petition, reveals assertion that plaintiff is a incorporated
Company which had established a 0.8 MTPA pellet plant in June
2011 and commenced production. And that on 22nd/23rd of July
2010, it decided to expand its steel plant. For said purposes, it
required land. For purchase of land, it authorized Sri KJ Kuruvilla
one of its directors to initiate process of purchase of land. It
further pleaded that in pursuance of said authorization, Kuruvilla
approached defendant, who had represented to be good friend of
Sri Alex PJ, one of former directors of plaintiff and had shown
willingness in purchase of land. And in pursuance of same,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
HC-KAR
defendant purchased lands in Sy.nos.175/1, 176/1, 176/2, 179/3
and 179/4 totally measuring 21 acres 36 guntas. Thereafter, he
approached plaintiff showing his willingness to sell said lands to
plaintiff. For said purposes, he had sought transfer of Rs.60.00
Crores. It is pleaded that said money was transferred by RTGS.
9. It is further stated that defendant also offered
assistance in negotiating with farmers for purchase of additional
lands. For said purposes, plaintiff released further sum of
Rs.5.00 Crores and Rs.2,30,00,000/- in year 2012-13
corroborated by Bank statement. It was further stated that even
thereafter, plaintiff kept paying money to defendant to tune of
Rs.6,85,00,000/-. It is also seen, plaintiff pleaded about
execution of consent deed on 20.09.2013, by defendant in
favour of plaintiff agreeing to sell his land to plaintiff. And
believing his words, plaintiff transferred further amount of
Rs.10,35,50,000/- as advance between 01.10.2013 till
31.03.2014.
10. It was further stated, in order to avoid suspicion and
gain trust of defendant, plaintiff executed sale deed on
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
HC-KAR
27.01.2014 conveying 4 acres 27 guntas and also promised help
in further purchasers. It was thus, stated that from year 2011,
plaintiff had released a total sum of Rs.109,50,10,000/- believing
that defendant was utilizing same for purchase of lands. But, on
26.08.2021, defendant got issued legal notice falsely alleging
that he had purchased 17 Acres 9 guntas of land with his own
funds and demanding rent from plaintiff for occupying same.
11. It is stated that plaintiff replied to said notice on
08.01.2021 clearly stating that it was no longer interested in
purchasing any land from defendant and sought for refund of
entire advance money paid. It was alleged, conduct of defendant
was totally contrary to terms of agreement, wherein defendant
failed to acknowledge receipt of Crores of rupees from plaintiff
and also failed to produce receipts for said sum and conduct of
defendant issuing letter dated 18.08.2022 and taking note of
substantial delay in purchase of land, plaintiff had chosen not to
purchase any land from defendant and seek for return of
Rs.109,50,10,000/- advance amount paid and got issued a legal
notice on 29.05.2023, making said demand.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
HC-KAR
12. Plaintiff claimed that cause of action for suit first
arose on 26.08.2021, when defendant issued legal notice to
plaintiff and continued day today, suit was filed.
13. Though, it was vehemently contended that period of
limitation for a suit for money decree would commence from
date of last transaction between parties and pointing that same
was on 26.10.2014 and therefore suit filed in year 2024 was
barred by period of limitation, it is seen, while passing impugned
order, Trial Court considered said contention and opined as per
decisions, while considering application filed under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC only averments in plaint were required to be taken
into account and plaintiff had stated, issuance of legal notice by
defendant on 26.08.2021 claiming to have purchased land from
own funds and demanding rent from plaintiff for occupation of
said land as denial of plaintiff's right and thereby giving rise to
cause of action for filing of suit would prima facie render suit
within period of limitation, rejected IA no.II. Insofar as other
ground, it found court fee paid was sufficient and defendant had
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
HC-KAR
failed to produce any calculation showing it otherwise, rejected
said contention.
14. Prima facie a complete and meaningful reading of
entire plaint would reveal, when plaintiff required additional land
for expansion, and defendant had assured to help in securing it
to plaintiff, it had advanced money to defendant for purchase.
And in pursuance of same, it had released large amount of
money to defendant and also that defendant had purchased
some lands and sold them to plaintiff and assured to purchase
more lands. And act of defendant getting issued legal notice on
26.08.2021, claiming to have purchased lands from own funds
and demanding rent from plaintiff for occupation of lands as
refuting from it promises and giving rise to cause of action to
plaintiff for filing suit for entire advance money paid.
15. Whether, plaintiff was aware of defendant denying
transaction with plaintiff earlier and yet failed to file suit within
three years thereof would be a matter for trial. Plain reading of
plaint averments do not lead to conclusion about suit being
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194
HC-KAR
barred by period of limitation, nor due to non-payment of Court
fee, which ground was not canvassed herein.
16. For aforesaid reasons, none of contentions urged
would sustain. Reasons assigned by Trial Court in impugned
order are in proper exercise of jurisdiction vested and does not
suffer from any material illegality or irregularity calling for
interference in revision.
Hence, no grounds to interfere, Revision Petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM:
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51
