Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Where It's Glaring From Averments That Suit Is Hopelessly Time-Barred, Plaint Is To Be Rejected : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on December 20 set aside an order passed by the High Court of Bombay dated April 26, 2016.

While reiterating the position of law that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question for rejecting the plaint on that has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that in cases where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by the limitation, the "Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the Trial Court".

In this case, Respondent No.1 preferred a Special Civil Suit for the declaration of his ownership and possession in respect of the suit properties, stating that he is the direct descendent of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj from the Bhonsale Dynasty and he has inherited the vast lands all over Maharashtra from his ancestors.

The Appellants sought rejection of the said plaint by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) on grounds that the suit was barred by limitation. However, the Trial Court rejected the Appellant's application stating that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law, for which, the parties will have to lead evidence. This was then upheld by the High Court. 

Overruling the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed: "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."

Facts of the case

Through the April 26 order, the High Court dismissed an application challenging the order passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune whereby the Trial Court rejected an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of plaint being barrier by limitation.  

As per the brief facts, Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in the civil suit) filed a civil suit against the Appellants and the State of Maharashtra seeking certain relief in respective suit lands. The Appellant then sought a rejection of the plaint because the suit was barred by the Limitation Act, 1963. As per Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule of the 1963 Act, 3 years is prescribed as a period of limitation for filing a suit where a declaration is sought, or cancellation of an instrument or rescission of a contract. 

This was opposed by Respondent No. 1, stating that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and it has to be adjudicated only in the trial. The Trial Court on October 12, 2009, rejected the aforesaid application of the Appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

The Appellant then preferred a Civil Revision Application before the High Court which set aside the October 12 order and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for considering it afresh. However, by an order dated April 29, 2014, the Trial Court again rejected the application of the Appellant. It observed that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which parties will have to lead evidence. 

The Appellant again filed a Civil Revision Application, which was dismissed by the High Court on April 26, 2016. Against this order, the present appeal lies. 

What did the Supreme Court observe?

The Court held that as per the settled law when an application to reject the plaint is filed, the averments in the plants and the documents annexed therewith alone are germane. In this regard, the Court observed: "The Court cannot look into the written statement or the documents filed by the defendants. The Civil Courts including this Court cannot go into the rival contentions at that stage."

The Court also stated that the averments made in the application by Respondent No. 1 are baseless and vague statements as they were not substantiated by evidence. They were clearly crafted to create a cause of action. It found that the 3/4th of the property in question was sold to the Appellant by Respondent No. 1 predecessors through a Court action in 1938 when Respondent No.1 was not even born. The rest were subsequently conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952.

On grounds of limitation, the Court said: "The plaintiff has asserted that by government resolutions in 1980 and 1984 he has acquired the title over the properties. Therefore, as a prudent man, he ought to have initiated necessary steps to protect his interest. Having failed to do so and created a fictional date for cause of action, the plaintiff is liable to be non-suited on the ground of limitation...We have already held that the title claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and therefore, the claim for possession is also barred and consequently, the relief of recovery of possession is also hopelessly barred by limitation."

Case Details: SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS v. SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER., Arising out of SLP (C) No.18977 of 2016)

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041

Click Here To Read Order