Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd., filed a civil suit in 2005 against the Central Bank of India and another respondent seeking a decree for rendition of true and correct accounts regarding interest and commission charged on its current account for the period between 1 April 1997 and 31 December 2000, and for recovery of the excess amount charged with interest. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the right to sue accrued in October 2000 when the bank ceased providing the facility and the alleged excess charges were deducted, but the suit was filed in February 2005, beyond the three-year period. The appellant argued that the cause of action arose only upon the bank's refusal of its representation via letters dated 19 September 2002 and 3 June 2003, and after a legal notice on 7 January 2005. The trial court, relying on C.P. Kapur v. The Chairman & Ors., held that exchange of correspondence cannot extend limitation. The first appellate court and the High Court affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court, in the present appeal, considered whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d). The Court reiterated the settled legal position that for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are relevant, and if the plaint on a meaningful reading shows the suit is barred by limitation, it must be rejected. The Court noted that the plaint itself stated that the facility was availed until October 2000 and the excess charges were deducted till that date, indicating that the right to sue accrued in October 2000. The suit was filed in February 2005, clearly beyond three years. The Court held that the exchange of correspondence between the parties cannot extend the period of limitation once the right to sue has accrued. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Limitation - The court examined whether a plaint seeking rendition of accounts and recovery of excess amount from a bank was barred by limitation. The plaint averments showed that the right to sue accrued in October 2000, but the suit was filed in February 2005, beyond the three-year period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court held that exchange of correspondence cannot extend limitation once the right to sue has accrued. The plaint was rightly rejected. (Paras 2-6) B) Limitation - Article 113 Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for Rendition of Accounts - Where no specific article applies, Article 113 provides a limitation period of three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. In this case, the right to sue accrued in October 2000 when the bank ceased to provide the facility and the excess charges were deducted. The suit filed in February 2005 was time-barred. (Paras 2-3) C) Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Scope - The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) can be exercised at any stage if from the averments in the plaint the suit appears to be barred by any law, including limitation. The court must read the plaint as a whole and cannot consider pleas in the written statement. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint filed by the appellant for rendition of accounts and recovery of excess amount charged by the bank was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the rejection of the plaint by the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court, as the suit was clearly barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Article 113 Limitation Act 1963
- rejection of plaint
- limitation for rendition of accounts
- accrual of right to sue
