Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Ramesh Mali, filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction in respect of certain properties originally owned by his deceased father, Pandurang Barkya Mali. The plaint alleged that by a purported agreement for sale dated 30.06.1974, Defendant Nos.8 and 9 (Kanayalal Kalooji Jain and Narain Tulsidas Kanal) sought to purchase the suit properties from the plaintiff's father. Subsequently, Jain and Kanal entered into agreements dated 05.08.1974 and 18.09.1974 with late J.N. Agarwal (predecessor of Defendant Nos.10-12) regarding the same properties. The late J.N. Agarwal issued public notices and advertisements inviting claims on 06.10.1979 and 11.10.1979. The plaintiff claimed that the agreements were fraudulent and that he only came to know of the fraud in 2018. However, the plaint itself disclosed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the transactions as early as 2015 when he filed a caveat in the High Court. The defendants filed three interim applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The court examined the plaint allegations and found that the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged fraud more than three years before filing the suit in 2021. The court held that the suit was manifestly barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and rejected the plaint. The court also noted that the plaintiff's claim of fraud was not supported by any particulars and that the suit was an abuse of the process of law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Limitation - The court considered whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action within the period of limitation. The plaintiff claimed fraud but the plaint showed knowledge of the alleged fraud more than three years before filing the suit. Held that the suit was manifestly barred by limitation and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC (Paras 1-60).
B) Limitation - Fraud - Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The period of limitation for a suit for declaration and injunction is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. The plaintiff's knowledge of the alleged fraud in 2015 or earlier triggered the limitation period, and the suit filed in 2021 was beyond the prescribed period. Held that the suit was barred by limitation (Paras 30-45).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit is barred by limitation and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The court allowed the interim applications and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as the suit was barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 58
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Barred by Limitation
- Cause of Action
- Fraud
- Knowledge of Fraud
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (07) 77
Interim Application (L) No. 2566 of 2022, Interim Application (L) No. 3696 of 2022, Interim Application (L) No. 4569 of 2022 in Suit (L) No. 29721 of 2021
Mr. Chetan Kapadia a/w Chaitanya Chavan, Rahul Singh and Pranali Raut i/b M/s. Legal Catalyst for the Plaintiff; Mr. Naushad Engineer with Shreya Jha a/w Mr. Hemang Raythattha, S.M. Seegarla, Shalaka Chamboowala and Swapnil Shikhare i/b RMG Law Associates for Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4; Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Vikranmjit Garewal and Ms. Priyanka Fadia i/b Shashank Fadia for Defendant Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7; Mr. Ankit Lohia with Ms. Aditi Bhat a/w Kunal Parekh, Ms. Nirali Shah i/b Dua Associates for Defendant Nos.10, 11 (a), (b) and 12 and proposed Defendant Nos.19 and 20; Mr. Rohan Agarwal i/b Prabha Badadare for Defendant Nos.13 to 15; Mr. Bhavin Gada a/w Ms. Manshi Shah i/b M/s. Pravin Mehta and Mithi Co. for IA(L)/7677/2022 in Propose Defendant Nos.21 and 22.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit seeking declaration and injunction in respect of property, with interim applications for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought declaration that agreements for sale were fraudulent and injunction against defendants.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff alleged that agreements for sale of his father's property were fraudulent and that he only came to know of the fraud in 2018.
Issues
Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Defendants argued that the plaint disclosed knowledge of the alleged fraud in 2015 or earlier, and the suit filed in 2021 was beyond the three-year limitation period.
Plaintiff argued that the fraud was discovered only in 2018 and the suit was within limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if it is manifestly barred by limitation. The period of limitation for a suit for declaration and injunction is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Knowledge of the alleged fraud triggers the limitation period, and the plaintiff's own pleadings showed knowledge more than three years before filing the suit.
Judgment Excerpts
The Interim Application (L) No.2566 of 2022 is filed by Original Defendant Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 to the captioned Suit whereas Interim Application (L) No.3696 of 2022 has been filed by Original Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to the Suit and Interim Application (L) No.4569 of 2022 has been filed by Original Defendant No.10 on behalf of Defendant Nos.10 to 12 to the Suit.
All the Interim Applications are filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the Suit is barred by limitation.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Suit (L) No. 29721 of 2021. The defendants filed three interim applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The applications were heard and reserved on 11th April 2022 and 7th June 2022, and judgment was pronounced on 18th July 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11(d)
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 58
