Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Smt Mahimakka on 16 September, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:36802
                                                          WP No. 25714 of 2025


                    HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                             BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 25714 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

                   BETWEEN:
                        POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
                        (UNDER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
                        A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE,
                        HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
                        "SAUDAMINI", PLOT NO.2,
                        SECTOR 29, GURGAON-122001,
                        HARYANA.

                        AND HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT
                        400/220 KV GIS SUB STATION,
                        NEAR RTO TEST TRACK,
                        SINGANAYAKANAHALLI,
                        YELAHANKA TALUK,
                        BENGALURU - 560 064.
                        REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
                        SMT JAYASREE T.J.,
Digitally signed by     W/O R SURESH NAIR,
GEETHAKUMARI            AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
PARLATTAYA S                                                       ...PETITIONER
Location: High Court
of Karnataka         (BY SMT.SANDHYA S., ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI TAJI GEORGE, ADVOCATE (PH))

                   AND:
                        SMT MAHIMAKKA
                        W/O (LATE) MAREGOWDA
                        AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
                        R/A L.OBANAIKANAHALLI,
                        NELAMANGALA TALUK,
                        BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562123
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                                        -2-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:36802
                                                  WP No. 25714 of 2025


HC-KAR



      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24TH OF FEBRUARY 2025 PASSED BY
THE   LEARNED        IX   ADDL.    DISTRICT      AND    SESSIONS     JUDGE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU DISTRICT ON IA NO. 2 IN
THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO. MISC. NO. 67 OF 2023 FILED UNDER
SECTION 16(3) OF THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, B) HOLD AND
DECLARE THAT THE ORIGINAL PETITION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION
UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 AND IS LIABLE
TO BE DISMISSED C) DIRECT THE LEARNED IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS      JUDGE       BENGALURU      RURAL    DISTRICT    BENGALURU
DISTRICT TO REJECT THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT HEREIN AS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION.


      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                             ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging order dated 24.02.2025 passed by IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Mis.no.67/2023, for rejecting application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,( for short 'CPC'), on ground of being barred by limitation by relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Electricity -3- NC: 2025:KHC:36802 WP No. 25714 of 2025 HC-KAR Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 634.

2. It is seen that similar contentions are urged by very same petitioner in W.P.no.25817/2025 has been considered and writ petition is dismissed with certain observation that whether petition filed by respondent is barred by limitation would require petitioner to lead evidence and rejection of petition on application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, would not be appropriate. Present writ petition would be similar to said writ petition and therefore, covered by said decision.

3. Following order passed in W.P.no.25817/2025, this writ petition is dismissed with clarification made therein.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14