Supreme Court of India· 20 December 2024
Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when limitation is a mixed question?
SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS v. SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024 · 2024 INSC 1025 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan
Answer
Yes. Though the question of limitation generally is a mixed question of law and facts, when upon a meaningful reading of the plaint the court can come to a conclusion that, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred, the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. 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 spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process.
Headnote
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.VII r.11(d) — Or.XXIII r.3A — Limitation Act, 1963 — Art.59 — Art.65 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.3 — Rejection of plaint — Constructive notice —
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.VII r.11(d) — Plaint hopelessly barred by limitation —
Held: Though limitation is generally a mixed question of law and facts, a plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) where a meaningful reading, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, shows the suit hopelessly barred. (¶18, 26)
Limitation Act, 1963 — Art.59 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.3 — Limitation runs from registration —
Held further: Registration operates as constructive notice and attracts the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Limitation for setting aside a registered sale deed runs from the date of registration and expires three years thereafter. (¶16, 20)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XXIII r.3A — Bar binds a stranger to the compromise —
Held further: The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A is applicable to third parties as well, so a stranger to the compromise cannot seek a declaration that the compromise decrees are void; the only remedy is to approach the same court. Appeal allowed; plaint rejected. (¶25, 27)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 18Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts below have held that the question of the suit being barred by limitation can be decided at the time of trial as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Though the question of limitation generally is mixed question of law and facts, when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court can come to a conclusion that under the given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. In the present case, we have already held that 02.03.2007 is a fictional date. It is not a case where a fraudulent document was created by the appellant or his predecessors. The title of the suit property as observed by us earlier was conveyed in 1938 and 1952, and what transpired later by way of compromise was only an affirmative assertion by the State. While so, the prayer (a) made in the suit relates to declaration to the effect that the Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the suit properties.
Paragraph 26At this juncture, we wish to observe that we are not unmindful of the position of law that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting the plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record. However, in cases like this, 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. We again place it on record that this is not a case where any forgery or fabrication is committed which had recently come to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff and his predecessors did not take any steps to assert their title and rights in time. The alleged cause of action is also found to be creation of fiction. However, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The High Court also erred in affirming the same, keeping the question of limitation open to be considered by the trial Court after considering the evidence along with other issues, without deciding the core issue on the basis of the averments made by the Respondent No.1 in the Plaint as mandated by Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. The spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. The Courts by being reluctant only cause more harm to the defendants by forcing them to undergo the ordeal of leading evidence. Therefore, we hold that the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
Acts & Sections
Or.VII r.11(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Or.XXIII r.3A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Art. 59 Limitation Act, 1963Art. 65 Limitation Act, 1963s.3 Transfer of Property Act, 1882s.31 Specific Relief Act, 1963One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS v. SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →