Karnataka High Court
Dr P Dayananda Pai vs Sri N Ravindranath Kamath on 10 November, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46130
CRP No. 715 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 715 OF 2025 (IO)
BETWEEN:
DR. P DAYANANDA PAI
S/O LATE NARASIMHA PAI
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
CENTURY GROUP OF COMPANIES
4TH FLOOR, JP AVENUE, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDAN K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH
S/O LATE N. VENKATESH KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ADVOCATE
NO.201 AND 202, 2ND FLOOR,
Digitally signed
by HVS COURT, NO.21
SHARADAVANI CUNNIGHAM ROAD
B
Location: High
BANGALORE - 560 052.
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI. G.S. VENKATA SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2025 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.III IN OS.NO.7719/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LXVII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
REJECTING THE IA.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a)
AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46130
CRP No. 715 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Chandan K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.G.S.Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Defendant in O.S.No.7719/2022 is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the order passed in the said suit on I.A.No.3 rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter 'CPC' for short).
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. Respondent/plaintiff being the practicing Advocate, said to have rendered professional services to the revision petitioner/defendant. In respect of such professional services, in the year 2015, a invoice was raised by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.27,50,000/-.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR 3.2. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-
is paid towards the said invoice and balance sum of Rs.15,50,000/- stood unpaid.
3.3. Plaintiff also detailed out as to what made him to keep quite when the entire amount was not paid as per the invoice amount in paragraph Nos.4 to 8 of the plaint which reads as under:
"4. The Plaintiff came to know through the newspaper publication in Times of India dated 11.01.2017 that the Defendant received Rs. 350 Crores from M/s. Galaxy Builders. When the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant and requested to pay the balance amount of Rs. 15,50,000/-, the Defendant promised to pay the said amount. However, the Defendant went on postponing the payment of the balance amount. There is no justification whatsoever in delaying the payment as the Defendant received the full amount due to the Defendant from M/s. Galaxy Builders. The plaintiff whenever requested the Defendant for balance fee the Defendant expressed about his financial crisis and was evading prompt payment of balance fee amount.
5. It is submitted that in relation to Kashimutt litigation arising from O.S.NO.34/2000 on the file of Addl: District Judge, Tirupathi, as President of Bangalore Sri, Kashimutt (one of the Branch of Kashimutt) the Defendant entrusted -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR the said case to the Plaintiff with a request to appear for late Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji then Matadhipathy of Mutt and the Plaintiff accepted said brief and appeared before the courts at Tirupathi, Ernakulam, Kadapa, Hyderabad, New Delhi in all connected proceedings from the year 2008 till 2012, the deities of the Kashimutt, which was in the custody of the Plaintiff in the said suit Sri Raghavendra Theertha Swamiji was received by the Plaintiff herein as Per Court Orders in JMFC Court at Kadapa. Due to the hard, efforts of plaintiff herein a huge success was achieved by the plaintiff which was celebrated by spending crores of rupees by followers of the mutt. Defendant promised a huge fee to the Plaintiff with lots of appreciation for plaintiff and took credit for himself for the achievement of the plaintiff. But the Defendant miserably failed to honour his assurances to the plaintiff. At one stage, the Defendant even cited the reason that the Defendant was in financial crisis that the Defendant was unable to pay any fee to the Plaintiff in the case related to Kashimutt. The Plaintiff initially requested for Rs. 1 Crore fee for the services rendered by him for 4 years in Kashimuttmatter, but at the request of elderly people of the Mutt, it was reduced at Rs. 40,00,000/- But the Plaintiff has been paid, only Rs. 10,00,000/- by mutt related persons from Mumbai balance Rs.30,00,000/- is still due. The Plaintiff is conduce of escapism has resulted in great damage to the still hoping to get that balance money and the Defendants Plaintiff and he is put into a lot of financial crisis. At certain stage, the Defendant even told the Plaintiff that the Defendant's son, Mr. Ravindra -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR Pai is objecting to pay any fees relating to Kashimutt to the Plaintiff but off-late the' Defendant is projecting Mr. Ravindra Pai as a Leader of Kashimutt. Recently the Defendant has paid Rs. 1 Crore for Rama Mandir Construction at Ayodhya' which news has appeared in certain reputed newspapers. The handing over of cheque to Sri Mukund, R.S.S. Leader by the Defendant, defendant's wife and son Ravindra Pai, a photo has appeared in certain newspaper. When the Defendant has the capacity to do charity, the Defendants obligation of paying fee to the Advocate appointed by him for the Defendant's personal matter relating to the cases conducted by the plaintiff also has to be honoured. It is defendants responsibility & foremost criteria to honour it. Certain followers of the Kashimutt have now come forward to settle the Kashimutt related case fees to the plaintiff.
6. The Defendant also requested the Plaintiff to help Secretary of Kashimutt, Sri K. Narayana Shenoy in his certain litigations in Kerala and other places, which the Plaintiff promptly rendered. The said K. Narayana Shenoy and family has also duped the Plaintiff and has not paid any fee till now inspite of issuance of notice to them.
7. In this background, the Plaintiff on 14.11.2018 filed proceedings before the District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore-/560002 for mediation. Though the said summons was served on the Defendant, representatives of Kashimutt or Narayana Shenoy and family failed to -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR appear before the said Authority and Advocate appearing for the Defendant submitted to the authority in the course of Proceedings that the Defendant is not prepared to do any settlement. Recently the Plaintiff was informed by District Services Legal Authority that the Mediation has failed due to non-cooperation of respondents which includes the Defendant also.
8. The Plaintiff sent a personal letter to the defendant on 7-2-2018 for which there is no response from defendant, the proceedings filed by the plaintiff before the District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore dated 14.11.2018 is also unanswered by the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant on 27-2-21. After the said Legal Notice is received by the defendant, he has not replied for the same and he has not complied with the demand made therein. The plaintiff is put to considerable hardship by the defendant in not honouring his commitment. Due to defendant's failure to honour his assurances, the plaintiff is put to severe financial loss. The Defendant is therefore liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. from the date he received balance amount from M/s. Galaxy Builders till the date of actual payment to the plaintiff. Hence, this suit is filed for recovery of amount due by the defendant to the plaintiff towards arrears of legal fee payable to the plaintiff by the defendant with interest."
-7-NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR 3.4. Cause of action to file the suit is found in paragraph No.9 of the plaint which is also culled out hereunder for ready reference:
"The cause of action to the above case arised on 05.03.2013, 11.09.2015, 07.02.2018, 14.11.2018 at Bangalore within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."
4. Learned Trial Judge after registering the case, issued summons to the defendant.
5. Defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement inter alia contending that there was a settlement of dues payable to the plaintiff by the defendant.
6. It is also contended that as per the settlement, plaintiff had agreed to receive sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as against the invoice amount of Rs.27,50,000/-. Therefore, suit is not maintainable.
7. Second ground on which the suit was opposed is on the ground of limitation.
-8-NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. Apart from filing the written statement, defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint.
9. Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing detailed written statement maintaining that the suit needs to be adjudicated on merits.
10. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties in detail, dismissed the said application filed by the defendant inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 as under:
"12. On considering the arguments addressed by both the sides, it is at pertinent to note that Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., can be exercised by the court at the power under at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which needs to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on entire meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in sense of 'disclosing any right to, sue the court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. In the present case the 'defendant has contended that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, also the plaintiff has no legal right to sent a personal letter dated:7.02.2018 and the legal notice dated:27.02.2018. In this regard it is pertinent to note that it is only after trial the court can -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR come to the conclusion as to whether the suit is barred by. limitation. Hence at this stage the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the contention taken by the defendant as the legal notice was issued on 27.02.2018 i.e., within the period of limitation which lapsed on 10.09.2018.
13. On the other hand, the contention taken by the plaintiff that the power of attorney holder of the defendant has no locus standi to sign the pleadings and affidavit does not hold good as this court vide order dated:3.07.2024 has permitted the G.P.A.Holder Sri.Chethan Kumar to contest the case on behalf of the defendant. Hence the said Sri.Chethan Kumar has the authority to file the affidavit in support of the application.
14. Further it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1525/2023, wherein it has observed that "while considering the question of rejection of the plaint, it is the plaint alone which has to be read meaningfully and not any averment in the written statement. It is also necessary sometimes to consider the documents annexed to the plaint for holistic and comprehensive reading of the plaint in order to decide whether the plaint ought to be rejected or not".
11. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR That the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and is nothing but failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Trial Court.
That the Trial Court has not appreciated any contention or arguments raised by the Defendant and has not attempted to provide reasoning in arriving at the conclusion that I.A. No. 3 ought to be dismissed. Merely by a mechanical application of mind, the Trial Court stated that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of averments in the written statement, and it observed that nothing was brought out in the plaint to show that the suit is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Trial Court failed to examine the plaint in accordance with the jurisdiction vested in it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Trial Court has ignored settled principles of law, and the order is liable to be set aside in limine.
That the Trial Court incorrectly observed at para 15 of the Order that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the written statement. The Petitioner never relied on the written statement, and the bar of limitation was only demonstrated from Plaint averments alone. Hence, the reasoning is misplaced.
That the Trial Court erred in concluding that the limitation can only be decided after trial. When the plaint itself admits that the writ petition was disposed of and the case was altogether concluded, and thereafter a bill was raised on 11.09.2015, the cause of action, if any, clearly arose on that date. Under Article
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation expired at the latest by 10.09.2018. Thus, lack of limitation is apparent on the face of the plaint, and no evidence is required.
That the Trial Court further failed to consider para 4 of the plaint, wherein it was averred that the Plaintiff came to know through the Times of India newspaper that the Defendant had received ₹350 crores from M/s Galaxy Builders. Even assuming the date of knowledge to be 11.01.2017, the limitation to file the suit expired on 10.01.2020. The Trial Court failed to understand that a suit for recovery of a professional fee is squarely covered under Article 18 of the Limitation Act and in the present case limitation commenced on 11.09.2015 when the Plaintiff sent professional fee bill to the Defendant and hence as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the present suit should have been file on or before 10.09.2018.
That, as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the limitation to file a suit commences from the date the work is done. Hence, in the present case, the writ petition was actually disposed on 05.03.2013 and hence the limitation to file a suit to recover professional fees in respect of the said case started running from 05.03.2013 and the Plaintiff should have in-fact filed the suit on or before 05.03.2016. That, Plaintiff has in his plaint cleverly not revealed the date of disposal of the said writ petition as he is aware that if he reveals the same, it would be clear that the suit is time barred.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR In any case, even the considering the date of issuance of invoice, i.e., 11.09.2015, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
While the Trial Court referred to Raghvendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (AIR 2019 SC 1430), Dahiben v. Arvindbhai (2020) 7 SCC 366, and Manipal University v. Ramanjinappa H. (Karnataka HC, 2021), it failed to apply the ratio laid down in the said referred judgments. These authorities mandate that where the bar of limitation is evident from plaint averments, the plaint must be rejected, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from protracting the proceedings in a sham litigation and saving judicial time.
That the Trial Court erred in not applying the principles laid down in Raghvendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (AIR 2019 SC 1430). The Apex Court has clearly laid down at paragraph 8 that if, from the averments of the plaint, it is found that the suit is barred by limitation, the Court can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11. The same is reproduced hereunder:
"8. Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original Plaintiff and even the observations made by the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court that the question with respect to the limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after the parties lead the evidence, is concerned, as observed and held
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR by this Court in the cases of Sham Lal alias Kuldip (supra); N.V. Srinivas Murthy (supra) as well as in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra), considering the averments in the plaint, if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure."
That the Trial Court failed to consider the reliance placed by the Defendant on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (MANU/SC/0508/2020). The principles laid down in the said judgment at paragraph 12.1 & 13 are reproduced hereunder:
"12.1 ... The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the Plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
"13 ... In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., this Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR '5.... The learned Munsiff must remember that if, on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O. VII, R. 11 CPC, taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing..."
On a plain reading of the above, it is evident that the Plaintiff deliberately did not disclose the date of disposal of W.P. No. 18969/2005, and only raised the bill for professional fees on 11.09.2015. This clearly states that clever drafting and notices do not create a fresh cause of action where limitation is otherwise barred.
That the Trial Court misplaced the reliance placed by the Defendant on Manipal University v. Ramanjinappa H. (MANU/KA/2593/2021). The principles laid down in the said judgment at paragraph 34 is reproduced hereunder:
"34. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhansuali supra has held as follows in paragraph 23.3 "The underlying objective Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule (d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR unnecessarily protracted proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted."
Even in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India supra it is observed that clause (d) makes, "it clear that if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected." As such, the question of limitation for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC cannot be refused to be considered in all cases on the ground that it would always be a mixed question of fact and law."
That, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Trial Court ought to conduct a thorough examination of the plaint and the documents produced along with the Plaint to determine whether, through clever drafting, the Plaintiff has attempted to create an artificial cause of action or to avoid falling under the law of limitation.
That the impugned order compels the Petitioner to face a full trial in a suit which is deadwood in law. This defeats the very objective of Order VII Rule 11 (a) &
(d) CPC, which is to prevent unnecessary, protracted proceedings and to save judicial time.
The Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) CPC, thereby allowing a vexatious and hopelessly time-barred claim to proceed. Once the suit is barred by limitation, it is hit by Section
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates dismissal of time-barred suits irrespective of defense. Failure to do so amounts to a jurisdictional error, warranting interference under Section 115 CPC. The Trial Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction only results in prolonging frivolous litigation."
12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that in the first place, entire invoice amount having been paid in view of the settlement between the parties, in order to teach a lesson to the defendant, in respect of some other litigation, wherein plaintiff is a defaulter in the cooperative society, present suit came to be filed.
13. Second ground on which the suit was opposed is on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected is the contention on behalf of the revision petitioner.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment.
15. He would contend that there is no oblique motive in filing the suit.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. He would further contend that the question of limitation in the case on hand, cannot be decided as a mathematical precession in view of the cause of action paragraph and the number of notices issued by the plaintiff for which there was no reply nor compliance and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
18. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that admittedly, defendant did avail the professional services from the plaintiff.
19. What was the professional charges that was agreed between the parties is to be adjudicated before the Trial Court by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record.
20. Suffice to say that that there is an invoice which is not in dispute, which was raised by the plaintiff for the professional service rendered by him amount to Rs.27,50,000/-.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR
21. Plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint that he received a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards the invoice amount and balance sum of Rs.15,50,000/- stood unpaid.
22. Defendant has stated that though the invoice amount was in a sum of Rs.27,50,000/-, there was a settlement between plaintiff and defendant and whereby, the professional charges was restricted to Rs.12,00,000/- and entire amount having been paid, the present suit is not maintainable.
23. Whether at all there was a settlement, was there anything in writing or it is only the oral settlement, are all the matters of evidence that needs to be thrashed out after full-
fledged trial. Therefore, plaint cannot be rejected on that score.
24. Second ground on which the plaint is sought to be rejected by the defendant is on the question of limitation.
25. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner with vehemence, contended that the invoice is of the year 2015 and plaintiff being the practicing Advocate, necessarily knows the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR law of limitation and therefore, suit filed in the year 2022, by cleverly drafting the cause of action paragraph cannot save the period of limitation.
26. No doubt, the invoice is dated 2015. Part payment has been made by the plaintiff and balance is due. Cause of action paragraph mentions number of legal notices issued by the plaintiff. Two such notices as could be seen from the cause of action paragraph are of the year 2018.
27. Whether at all, suit is in time or not when such disputed facts is there is a question which needs recording of the evidence. In other words, in the case on hand, plaint cannot be rejected by calculating the cause of action from the year 2015 by mathematical precision.
28. Plaintiff being the practicing Advocate, defendant being the Managing Director of a company, would not allow the matter to be lingering around this long if there was a true settlement between the parties.
29. What made the plaintiff to accept the part payment, what made the plaintiff not to demand further amount from the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46130 CRP No. 715 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant and what made the defendant in not getting a document that the invoice amount is fully settled nor the alleged statement is reduced into writing are all the matters which needs to be thrashed out by the parties by adducing necessary evidence before the Court below.
30. In other words, there exists a triable issue with regard to the lis between the parties.
31. Under such circumstances, rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC filed by the defendant is just and proper which requires no interference too in this revisional jurisdiction.
32. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65