The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3136 CRP No. 8 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 8 OF 2025 BETWEEN: G. MUNI REDDY S/O GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT M UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR-563139 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT. VIMALA. P. N. Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE B T VENKATESH REDDY, R/AT NO.125/1/142. 9TH CROSS, OPPOSITE CITY MEDICALS, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560105 2. V LOKESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE B T VENKATESH REDDY, R/AT NO.125/1, 9TH CROSS, OPPOSITE CITY MEDICALS, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560103 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3136 CRP No. 8 of 2025 3. V GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE B T VENKATESH REDDY, R/AT NO.89/5, GOPI NILAYA, IST CROSS, BEHIND KARNATAKA BANK, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560103 4. MAHESH S AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O SRINIVAS REDDY, R/AT NO.65, 6TH CROSS, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560103 5. SMT. NANDA DEVI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE NAGARAJ REDDY, R/AT NO.210, 6TH CROSS, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560103 6. SMT. SARITHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O ANAND, D/O LATE NAGARAJ REDDY, R/AT NO.210, 6TH CROSS, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 V/O/DT. 24.01.2025, NOTICE TO R4 TO R6 D/W) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 3/24 IN OS NO.25347/2024 ON THE FILE OF XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA NO. 3/24 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3136 CRP No. 8 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner being defendant No.1 in O.S.No.25347/2024, is aggrieved of the rejection of his Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. 2. The suit is filed on 18.04.2024, seeking a declaration that the Confirmation Deed dated 17.08.2021, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar (Indranagar) has been obtained by defendant No.1 by fraudulent misrepresentation and consequently to set aside the same. A prayer for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from creating any third party interest over the suit schedule property is also made in the plaint. Application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC was filed by defendant No.1 contending that in terms of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, if a suit or application is based upon fraud, the same has to be filed within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3136 CRP No. 8 of 2025 However, the Trial Court is of the opinion that the cause of action for filing such a suit would arise from the date of knowledge to the plaintiffs regarding the fraud played by defendant No.1. The Trial Court has opined that as to when the plaintiffs have got the knowledge of fraud and misrepresentation, is something that would be a mixed question of law and fact and therefore, at this juncture, the plaint cannot be rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would once again drawn the attention of this Court to proviso of sub- section (1) of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, to contend that the application was required to be made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be. While drawing attention of this Court to paragraph No.17 of the plaint, it is pointed out that the plaintiffs have themselves contended that the cause of action for suit arose on 17.08.2021, when defendant No.1 got the Confirmation Deed registered and therefore, while applying the law, the Court should have held that the suit is barred by law of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3136 CRP No. 8 of 2025 limitation, since the suit was filed after the said period of one year. 4. However, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has rightly pointed out to Section 17 and the proviso sought to be relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the proviso is to sub-section (2) of Section 17, which pertains to the right of Judgment Debtor, who was prevented by fraud or force to seek execution of the decree or an order within the period of limitation. Therefore, the said proviso which is sought to be relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No.1, is not the one applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. On the other hand, it is pointed to Article 59 of the Limitation Act, that the time for seeking cancellation or set aside an endorsement begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiffs to have the instrument or decree cancelled when it first become known to them. In other words, it is sought to be contended that it would be a mixed question of law and fact as to the time from which - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3136 CRP No. 8 of 2025 the cause of action began for the plaintiffs in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for defendant No.1 and learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, this Court finds that although it is stated at paragraph No.17 in the plaint that the cause of action arose on 17.08.2021 when the Confirmation Deed was executed and registered, nevertheless, on a complete reading of the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiffs are alleging fraud and misrepresentation, against defendant No.1 in the matter of getting the Confirmation Deed executed at the hands of the plaintiffs. Therefore, unless the plaintiffs are permitted to lead evidence in that regard, the Trial Court cannot come to a conclusion as to when exactly the cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file the suit seeking cancellation of the document. 7. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that a time frame may be fixed for disposal of the suit so that the rights of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3136 CRP No. 8 of 2025 defendant No.1 will be protected and he will be able to deal with the property in question in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands
Decision
disposed of while upholding the impugned order, but it is made clear that this Court has said nothing regarding the limitation and the time from which the cause of action arose for filing the suit. The learned XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH 29), Mayohal, Bengaluru, shall endeavor to consider and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL