ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri.Skanda Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.D.Raghunath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent. 2. Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application vide I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.8355/2023 dated 06.11.2025 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. Respondent/plaintiff being the association filed a suit against the defendant with the following prayer: “Wherefore, the plaintiff most respectfully prays before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree thereby directing the defendant to: a. To pay a sum of Rs.37,58,233 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Three Rupees Only) along with interest at 24% p.a. up to the date of the suit together with future interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization in full, b. Direct the defendant to pay the cost of the suit; and c. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 3.2. Plaintiff contended that plaintiff is the association of apartment owners of the building known as ‘Tree House’. 3.3. It is further contented that after the flats came to be constructed, as per the deed of declaration, every owner of the individual flat must pay an amount towards the quarterly maintenance for the upkeep of the building as is fixed by the managing committee from time to time. 3.4. Further the maintenance paid by every owner may include payment to the general operating fund, reserve fund, sinking fund for periodic renovation, replacement etc. 3.5. According to the plaint averments, there was a demand of outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.37,58,233/- including the interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 3.6. Plaintiff also contended that other owners of the plaintiff’s association filed an arbitration case in Arbitration Case No.113/2026 against the defendant claiming a sum of Rs.39,83,623/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% from 18.06.2010 towards the contribution of her share for construction of apartment building and completion of her apartment unit. 3.7. 3.6. Plaintiff also contended that other owners of the plaintiff’s association filed an arbitration case in Arbitration Case No.113/2026 against the defendant claiming a sum of Rs.39,83,623/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% from 18.06.2010 towards the contribution of her share for construction of apartment building and completion of her apartment unit. 3.7. Plaint averments further reveal that the said amount is paid by the defendant but she failed to clear the arrears of maintenance charges. 3.8. Cause of action paragraph in the plaint is at paragraph No.13 which reads as under. “It is submitted that the cause of action for the above suit arose prior to 01.04.2015 to 20.10.2023 and on the dates when the defendant has not made quarterly payments towards the arrears of maintenance, on various occasions when the plaintiff made regular follow-up via email, also the date on which the plaintiff got issued the legal notice and all other subsequent dates and every periodical quarter, where the defendant was due to the plaintiff.” 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement and also denied the plaint averments and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 5. Plaintiff/association filed the objection to the said application. 6. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the application filed by the defendant inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.9 to 20 as under: “9. According to defendant, who is admittedly the co- owner of the property, has not executed or registered the Deed of Declaration. According to defendant, as mentioned under section 2 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 the Act applies only to properties, the sole owner or all the owners of which submit the same to the provisions of the Act by executing and registering a declaration. In view of admitted fact that, the defendant never executed or registered the declaration, and therefore defendant is not bound by any of the clauses in the Deed of Declaration. Therefore there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff’ association and the defendant. Hence, plaintiff association has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendant. 10. No doubt, defendant has not executed or registered the deed of declaration dated 28.06.2019. Therefore there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff’ association and the defendant. Hence, plaintiff association has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendant. 10. No doubt, defendant has not executed or registered the deed of declaration dated 28.06.2019. But, the court could not ignore the documents filed by the plaintiff's Association along with plaint. The documents so placed before court are the Agreement dated 31.03.2008, the Sale Deed dated 02.04.2008, the Arbitral Award dated 11.01.2019 and Deed of Declaration dated 03.10.2019 as the agreement dated 31.03.2008 is an undisputed document, the parties to the same including the defendant is precluded from denying the contents of agreement. It is thus pertinent to mention about Clause 17, 19 and 25 of the agreement dated 31.03.2008, which are reproduced below. 17) On completion of the residential apartment building to be constructed on the scheduled property, the parties here shall form an association for the maintenance of the aforesaid mentioned residential building to execute and register the Deed of Declaration under the Provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. 19) The maintenance charges for common amenities shall be contributed by each of the parties in proportion to their share of super- built area which maintenance charges shall be fixed by mutual consent of the parties hereto. 25) The parties herein shall be bound by the rights, restrictions and obligations contained in this agreement. 11. So from the contents of admitted document mentioned supra, prima facie it becomes clear that, it was agreed between the parties to the agreement, including defendant whose ranking is mentioned as party no.3 in the agreement that, on completion of the residential apartment building to be constructed on the scheduled property, the parties there to shall form an association for the maintenance of the residential building, to execute and register the Deed of Declaration under the provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. 12. According to plaintiff, with a majority view it was decided to have a Deed of Declaration as per the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 accordingly, was made and executed among the members of the plaintiff's Association, who are none other than the co-owners of the property. Thereafter, a Deed of Declaration was formalized and upon agreeing with the terms mentioned therein, it came to be executed on 28.06.2019. Thereafter, a Deed of Declaration was formalized and upon agreeing with the terms mentioned therein, it came to be executed on 28.06.2019. The parties to the aforesaid agreement dated 31.03.2008, who are the owners of the apartment, agreed that they shall be the members of the plaintiff's association. Towards this end, the plaintiff placed before the court the certified copy of the Registered Deed of Declaration dated 28.06.2019. 13. Apparently, the defendant herein is not a party to the said Deed of Declaration. Indeed, the prime contention of the learned counsel for defendant is that, as the defendant is not a party to the Deed of Declaration, she is not bind by the terms enumerated in said Deed of Declaration. Elaborating his contention, the learned counsel for defendant urged that, as enumerated under Section 2 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, itself the Act applies only to properties, the sole owner or all the owners of which submit the same to the provisions of the Act by executing and registering a declaration. As the defendant has not executed or joined as declarant to the Deed of Declaration dated 28.06.2019, any of the terms enumerated therein in the Deed of Declaration is not applicable to her and as such suit itself is not maintainable. Wherefore, in the absence of privity of contract, there is no cause of action to file this suit and hence plaint is liable to be rejected. 14. As against the above arguments of learned counsel for defendant, the learned counsel for plaintiff urged that, as enumerated under Section 2 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, even a sole owner can become a declarant and execute the deed of declaration and as such, the Deed of Declaration dated 28.06.2019 is applicable to the defendant, who is admittedly the owner of Apartment No.3A. 15. As both the counsels heavily relied upon Section 2 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, it is appropriate to reproduce the section and accordingly reproduced below. 2. This Act applies only to property the sole owner or all of the owners of which submit the same to the provisions of this Act by duly executing and registering a declaration as herein after provided: Provided that, no property shall be submitted to the provisions of this Act, unless it is mainly used, or proposed to be used for residential purposes. 16. 16. Though this is not the stage to express anything with regard to the applicability of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, but, as the defendant in the present application heavily relied on this section, the court constrained to percolate through Section 2 of the Act. To the understanding of the court, it is not necessary that while executing Deed of Declaration as per Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, all the owners of the apartment shall submit Deed of Declaration. Rather, even a sole owner can execute a Deed of Declaration. Likewise all the owners can submit a Deed of Declaration and thereby submit to the provisions of the said Act. In the present case, the Deed of Declaration dated 28.06.2019 shows that, majority of the owners, indeed excluding the defendant all other owners as declarants have executed the Deed of Declaration dated 25.06.2019 and thereby submit themselves to the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. 17. At this juncture, it is necessary to recollect clause No.17 of the admitted agreement dated 31.03.2008, which is already extracted above. As per clause 17 of the said agreement, on completion of the residential apartment building to be constructed on the scheduled property, the parties thereto shall form an association for the maintenance of the residential building to execute and register the Deed of Declaration under the Provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. Wherefore, the court could not find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for defendant that, as the defendant is not a party to the Deed of Declaration there is no privity of contract between the parties and consequentially the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 is not applicable to her and as such there is no cause of action to file the suit. 18. The second contention taken by the defendant to reject the plaint is that, the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and therefore invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) the plaint is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for defendant contented that the suit claim is barred by limitation. Elaborating his contention the learned counsel for defendant urged that, the suit is filed in the month of December 2023 claiming the exorbitant arrears of maintenance for the prior period back to 01.04.2015 with exorbitant interest at the rate of 24%, which is illegal. The learned counsel for defendant contented that the suit claim is barred by limitation. Elaborating his contention the learned counsel for defendant urged that, the suit is filed in the month of December 2023 claiming the exorbitant arrears of maintenance for the prior period back to 01.04.2015 with exorbitant interest at the rate of 24%, which is illegal. All the claims on or before December, 2020 are barred by limitation. 19. With regard to aforementioned contention of learned counsel for defendant, the Learned counsel for plaintiff urged that, the cause of action in the present suit is a recurring cause of action and therefore the limitation of 3 years to file a suit for recovery of money has no application. Elaborating his contention, the learned counsel for plaintiff urged further that, the defendant is due in payment of maintenance amount relating to her flat No.3A and even today she is not paying the current maintenance and therefore the cause of action is continuous one and it is a recurring cause of action. Indeed the learned counsel for plaintiff draw the attention of the court to Section 19 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act and it is reproduced below. 19. All sums assessed by the Association of Apartment owners but unpaid for the share of common expenses chargeable to any apartment shall constitute a chare on such apartment prior to all other charges, except only (i) charge if any on the apartment for payment of Government and Municipal taxes and (ii) All sums unpaid an a first mortgage of the apartment. 20. With regard to the point of limitation, the counsel for plaintiff urged that, limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and that has to be decided only after trial. Wherefore while dealing with present interim application, it is not material to go deep into the issue related to limitation.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision on following grounds: The Trial Court erred in not taking judicial notice of the laws as contemplated under Section 52 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. The Trial Court ignored the fact that the suit instituted by the Respondent is evidently beyond the limitation period. The Trial Court failed to consider the principles laid down in Section 2 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. The Trial Court ignored the fact that the suit instituted by the Respondent is evidently beyond the limitation period. The Trial Court failed to consider the principles laid down in Section 2 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. The Trial Court erred in not noting that the Respondent had claimed for alleged maintenance prior to 01.04.2015 in a suit instituted in the year 2023. The Trial Court failed to consider that the cause of action is that of a recurring in nature, which is against which is in violation to the established principles of law. The trial court erred in considering that recurring cause of action would continue despite the alleged claim being from the year, prior to 2015. The trial court ought to have considered that the limitation act is very clear with respect to what constitutes to be a recurring cause of action, and the present case does not come under the ambit of the principles laid down under the Limitation Act, 1963. The Trial Court ought to have perused that all owners of the apartment units must submit to the Act by executing a Deed of Declaration and even if one owner fails to do execute the Deed then the Act would not be applicable. The Trial Court failed to observe that the Petitioner had not executed the alleged Deed of Declaration and as such the clauses of the same would not be applicable to the Petitioner. The Trial Court ignored the clause 19 (k) of the Deed of Declaration, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the said Deed is inapplicable to the Petitioner. The Trial Court. ought to have considered that The Petitioner does not become a member automatically in the alleged association as the petitioner had not affixed their signature in the Deed of Declaration. The Trial Court erred in, considering that clause, 19(e) of the Deed of Declaration stipulates that the Deed of Declaration, Bye laws and resolution shall be complied aptly but the Trial Court has failed to consider that the deed of declaration is not applicable as the petitioner had not affixed their signature in the Deed Of Declaration. The Trial Court erred in not implementing Section 5 (2) of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. The Trial Court failed to observe that the Section 5 (2) is not directory but mandatory in nature. The Trial Court erred in not implementing Section 5 (2) of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. The Trial Court failed to observe that the Section 5 (2) is not directory but mandatory in nature. The Trial Court erred in considering that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact But rather the settle principles of law as well as the settle decision clearly stipulates that once it is Prima Facia evident With respect to Limitation períod as perused in the plaint, which the respondent alleges for maintenance amounting to the years prior to 2015, which cannot be Sought for in the year of 2023. The Trial Court ought to have considered that every apartment owner shall execute the Deed of Declaration for implementation of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and upon non-execution of the same would entail non-application of the provisions of the above mentioned Act. The Trial Court failed to observe that the Clause No 17,19 and 25 of the agreement dated 31.03.2008 would not have a bearing effect, as there is no Deed of Declaration being affected by the Petitioner. The Trial Court erred in not perusing that the Respondent is not a recognised association as they do not meet with the requirements of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. The Trial Court erred in concluding that Majority of the owners can Seek for Implementation of the provisions later under the Karnataka apartment ownership act of 1972. When section 2 clearly bars The execution of date of declaration, if even if one of the owners does not a fix their signature to the deal of declaration which is a mandate according to the said act. The Trial Court erred in not implementing the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 1082, which clearly stipulates that "courts must apply binding. Presidents can't sidestep them by distinguishing in the name". The Trial court ought to have considered that section 19 of the Karnataka apartment ownership act of 1972 does not have any bearing impact in the present dispute. The Trial Court failed to observe that the Respondent cannot institute the suit as the Respondent does not have the locus standil under the law and hence the suit had to be dismissed. The Trial Court failed to observe that the Respondent cannot institute the suit as the Respondent does not have the locus standil under the law and hence the suit had to be dismissed. The Trial Court ought to have considered that the Respondent had not sought for any such permission under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to institute the alleged suit. The Trial Court erred in not considering that the alleged Respondent association came into existence only in the year 2019 but the alleged claim of the Respondent is prior to 2015, which is untenable under the law. The Trial Court failed to observe that there exists no privity of contract between the Petitioner and Respondent. The Trial Court erred in not taking the note about the fact that the Petitioner's Apartment till date is unfinished and has only 4 walls without any valid utility connections. The Trial Court failed to observe that the alleged claim of the Respondent is much prior to the existence of the Respondent and the same is unlawful and vold under the eyes of the law. The Trial Court ought to have considered that there existed no interest clause and the Respondent had charged an interest of 24% p.a. which is contrary to established principles of law. The Trial Court failed to implement the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court In Civil Appeal No. 14807/2024 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that, "The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint shall be rejected if any grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) are made out". It further observed, "Where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial court". The Trial Court erred in not appreciating the contention of the Petitioner and rejected the Interlocutory Application. The Trial Court failed to consider the material plea on record and summarily dismissed the application under the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the defendant being the owner of the land where the apartment has come up and there were differences from the beginning with regard to the construction of the building. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the defendant being the owner of the land where the apartment has come up and there were differences from the beginning with regard to the construction of the building. After the completion of the skeleton structure, the defendant was not allowed by the other owners to complete the construction of her share of the property. 9. Therefore, parties went for arbitration. It is further contended that even after the arbitration award has been complied by the defendant, the plaintiff’s association is not allowing the plaintiff to enter the premises. Therefore, very suit filed by the association is not maintainable and arrears of maintenance charges cannot be claimed as they are time barred and sought for admitting the petition for further consideration. 10. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is found that the parties are not seeing eye to eye. 12. As per the Apartment Ownership Act, an association of the residents of the individual flat owners has been formed. As per the resolution, each of the flat owners is required to pay necessary contribution for maintenance of the common areas, lighting in the common areas and other requirements from time to time. 13. A demand is raised by the association against the defendant in this regard. When the demand is not met, the plaintiff has also charged interest and filed the suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance charges. 14. It is also found from the records that in respect of the dispute, there was an arbitration proceeding and as per the arbitration award, defendant has complied the award amount and paid necessary amount. But with regard to the contribution, the dispute still exists between the defendant and the plaintiff. 15. It is always open for the defendant to have a settlement talks with the plaintiff association and arrive at a compromise. 16. Further, the plea of the defendant that the suit claim is barred by limitation is a mixed question of law and facts in the attendant facts and circumstances especially in view of the earlier arbitration proceedings between the parties. 17. 16. Further, the plea of the defendant that the suit claim is barred by limitation is a mixed question of law and facts in the attendant facts and circumstances especially in view of the earlier arbitration proceedings between the parties. 17. Suffice to say that the material on record would make out a cause of action to continue with the suit and the application filed seeking rejection of the plaint is rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge without holding the mini trial as to the rival claims of the parties. 18. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction would not warrant interference of this Court in the impugned order. 19. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed ii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions taken by the parties and same needs to be urged in the trial in accordance with law.