[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Anwar Pasha vs Sri. Venkanna Alias Venkatarao on 18 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4387
CRP No. 100112 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100112 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
ANWAR PASHA,
S/O MD. GOUS SAHEB KATAGERI,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O (DABBI SAHEB),
BEHIND KISHOR PROVISION STORE,
MUNIRABAD, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
...PETITIONER
(BY MISS. SITALAXMI P., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHARANABASAWA B., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
AND:
SRI VENKANNA @ VENKATARAO,
S/O SHRINIVASRAO POTEDAR,
AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOLEMUDLAPUR,
NOW R/O CLUB ROAD,
KOPPAL, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MB MADANALLI, ADVOCATE AND
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
SRI BD NARASAGOND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT (ABSENT)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.25 09:36:46
+0000
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 24.07.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
AT KOPPAL IN S.C.NO.6/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEM FIT PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4387
CRP No. 100112 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 24.07.2025 passed by Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Koppal1 in SC no.6/2020, this revision is filed.
2. Miss Sithalaxmi P., learned counsel appearing for Sri
Sharanabasawa B., advocate for petitioner submitted that
petitioner was defendant in SC no.6/2020 filed by respondent
herein for recovery of money. It was submitted that on
appearance, petitioner herein had filed an application under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 19082, for
rejection of plaint on ground of barred by limitation.
3. It was submitted, in plaint, plaintiff had stated that
on 27.05.2017 as per purchase voucher plaintiff had supplied
certain amount of paddy totally worth Rs.93,634/- and towards
which defendant had made part payment of Rs.60,000/- by
cheque bearing no.416679 dated 07.07.2017 and deferred
For short, 'Trial Court'
For short, 'CPC'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4387
HC-KAR
payment of balance amount of Rs.33,634/-. Defendant kept
postponing same. Therefore, plaintiff issued notice dated
19.11.2018 demanding payment and on ground that said notice
was not answered, suit was filed.
4. It was submitted Article 14 of Limitation Act, 1963,
prescribed period of limitation of three years from date of
sale/delivery of goods/suit filed for price of goods sold and
delivered. Therefore, suit filed on 30.07.2020 was beyond period
of three years from date of sale/delivery of goods i.e.,
07.07.2017 and time barred. Therefore, defendant had filed
application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC for rejection of
plaint. However, said application was dismissed by Trial Court
referring to period of limitation under Article 113 of Limitation
Act. It was submitted that since there was erroneous refusal to
exercise jurisdiction vested, and order suffered from material
irregularity, prayed for allowing petition.
5. There is no representation for respondent.
6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused
records.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4387
HC-KAR
7. This revision petition is by defendant challenging
dismissal of application for rejection of plaint filed under Order
VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Main ground urged is material irregularity
committed by Trial Court in applying period of limitation under
an incorrect provision.
8. On perusal of impugned order it is seen that Trial
Court while considering application noted that plaintiff had issued
legal notice demanding payment of balance amount on
19.11.2018, which was within three years from date of supply of
goods and suit was filed within three years from date of notice,
would appear within period of limitation prescribed under Article
113 of Limitation Act. Though, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that correct provision for period of limitation in present
circumstances is Article 14, perusal of same would reveal that
said Article would apply only where no specific period for
payment is agreed upon. In instant case, there is prima facie
assertion by plaintiff that defendant had been postponing
payment, which would amount to extension of time for payment.
9. Apart from above, question of limitation would be a
mixed question of fact and law necessitating trial. In said view of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4387
HC-KAR
matter, order rejecting application would be in accordance with
law. Therefore, petition is dismissed.
10. Registry to transmit records back to Trial Court.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SMM, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54
