Supreme Court ,If It Is Evident From The Allegations That The Suit Is Unavailingly Time-Barred, The Plaint Must Be Dismissed :Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Last Updated on December 31, 2024 by Arti Kumari
On December 20, the Supreme Court overturned an April 26, 2016, ruling by the Bombay High Court.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that in cases where it is evident 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.” This was in line with the legal position that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and the decision to reject the plaint on that must be made after weighing the evidence on file.
As the direct descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj from the Bhonsale Dynasty, Respondent No. 1 filed a Special Civil Suit in this case to declare his ownership and possession of the suit properties. He claimed to have inherited the vast lands throughout Maharashtra from his ancestors.
By submitting an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the appellants attempted to have the aforementioned plaint rejected on the grounds that the claim was precluded by limitation. The Appellant’s application was denied by the Trial Court, which stated that the parties must present evidence because the question of limitation is a mixed factual and legal matter. The High Court then upheld this.
The Supreme Court noted, overturning the High Court’s ruling: “We once more put on record that this is not a situation where any forgery or fabrication is done, which the plaintiff only recently became aware of. Instead, the plaintiff and his forebears failed to promptly assert their rights and title. The invention of fiction is likewise determined to be the asserted cause of action. However, the appellants’ application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC was mistakenly denied by the trial court.
As required by Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, the High Court erred in affirming the same, leaving the question of limitation open for consideration by the trial court after weighing the evidence and other factors. This was done without resolving the main issue based on the claims made by Respondent No. 1 in the plaint. The goal of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC is for the courts to stop a lawsuit before it starts when it seems like a blatant exploitation of the legal system. By making the defendants endure the trauma of leading evidence, the courts’ reluctance only serves to further injure them. Consequently, we maintain that the plaint may be turned down at the threshold.
Facts of the case
An application contesting the ruling of the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, wherein the Trial Court denied an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for the rejection of a plaint constituting a barrier by limitation was dismissed by the High Court in an order dated April 26.
In the civil litigation, Respondent No. 1 (the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the State of Maharashtra and the Appellants, requesting specific remedy in their separate suit lands. Because the suit was precluded by the Limitation Act of 1963, the appellant then requested that the plaint be rejected. According to Articles 58 and 59 of the 1963 Act’s Schedule, a lawsuit seeking a declaration, the cancellation of an instrument, or the revocation of a contract must be filed within three years.
Respondent No. 1 argued against this, arguing that the question of limitation is a mixture of factual and legal issues that must only be decided during the trial. On October 12, 2009, the Trial Court denied the appellants’ application in accordance with Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
After that, the appellant filed a Civil Revision Application with the High Court, which overturned the October 12 ruling and sent the case back to the Trial Court for further consideration. However, the Trial Court once more denied the appellant’s application in a decision dated April 29, 2014. It noted that parties will need to present evidence on the matter of limitation, which is a mixed legal and factual matter.
On April 26, 2016, the High Court rejected the appellant’s second civil revision application. The current appeal relates to this order.
What was noted by the Supreme Court?
According to established law, the allegations in the plants and the papers attached thereto alone are relevant when a request to reject the plaint is made, the Court ruled. Regarding this, the Court noted: “The written declaration and the papers provided by the defendants cannot be examined by the Court. At that point, the Civil Courts, including this Court, are not permitted to get into competing arguments.
The Court further declared that Respondent No. 1’s allegations in the application were unfounded and ambiguous since they lacked supporting documentation. They were obviously designed to establish a claim. It was discovered that, in 1938, when Respondent No. 1 was not even born, Respondent No. 1’s forebears sold the appellant a third of the land in question through a court action. In 1952, a recorded sale deed was used to transfer the remaining ones.
The plaintiff claimed that he had obtained the title to the properties through government resolutions in 1980 and 1984, the court stated on the grounds of limitation. Consequently, he should have taken the required actions to safeguard his interest as a reasonable individual would have. The plaintiff may be responsible for non-suit on the grounds of limitation as they neglected to do so and made up a date for the cause of action.We have previously determined that the plaintiff’s title claim is prohibited by limitation, which also means that the claim for possession is barred. As a result, the relief of possession recovery is also hopelessly precluded by limitation.
Case Title: Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust And Ors v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsingh Maharaj Bhonsle And Another., SLP (C) No.18977 of 2016)
