Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two Civil Revision Applications (CRA No. 12/2024 and CRA No. 13/2024) filed by defendants in a partition suit (RCS No. 78/2023) pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Paithan. The applicants (original defendants) challenged the trial court's order dated 07.10.2023 rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiffs (respondents 1-3) had instituted the suit seeking partition, separate possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits in respect of agricultural lands originally owned by Motilal Dulichand Saraf. According to the plaint, after Motilal's death, the properties were mutated in the name of his son Natvarlal, who then transferred them to Saraswatibai (Motilal's second wife) via partition in 1976-77. Saraswatibai resided with her elder son Rameshchandra, who allegedly manipulated mutation entries to transfer the properties to his sons Jagdish and Mahendra, who later mutated them in the names of their wives. The plaintiffs claimed that Rameshchandra used to provide income shares to his brothers Pramodchandra and Vinodchandra and take care of sisters, so no partition was sought earlier. However, after Rameshchandra's death on 07.09.2022, the defendants began dealing with the properties, including executing an agreement to sell dated 22.12.2022 in favor of defendant nos. 3 and 4, prompting the suit. The defendants filed a written statement and an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC, arguing that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was barred by limitation. The trial court rejected the application, holding that both issues were mixed questions of law and fact requiring trial. In the revision, the applicants argued that the trial court misapplied the law and failed to appreciate that the plaint was based on a fictitious cause of action and was hopelessly barred by limitation. They relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanus Gajra, Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, and others. The High Court, after hearing arguments, dismissed both revision applications. It held that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must only examine the plaint averments and any documents annexed, assuming them to be true. The plaint disclosed a cause of action based on the defendants' alleged dealings with the property after Rameshchandra's death, and the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact that could not be decided at the threshold. The court found no error in the trial court's order and upheld it, directing that the suit proceed to trial.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) CPC - Cause of Action - Limitation - The court must examine only the plaint averments and documents annexed; if the plaint discloses a cause of action, even if weak, the plaint cannot be rejected. Issues of limitation that are mixed questions of law and fact cannot be decided at the threshold. (Paras 8-10) B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC - Limitation - Where the plaint alleges a continuing cause of action and the question of limitation depends on facts such as possession and ouster, the issue must be decided at trial. (Paras 9-10) C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Demurrer - The court must assume the plaint averments to be true; if a triable issue arises, the application for rejection must be dismissed. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of plaint on grounds of no cause of action and bar of limitation.
Final Decision
Both Civil Revision Applications are dismissed. The impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Paithan below Exh. 78 in RCS No. 78/2023 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- rejection of plaint
- limitation
- cause of action
- mixed question of law and fact
- partition suit
- plaint averments
- demurrer
