(Prayer: 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.)

Oral Order

1. 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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 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.