Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ganpat Shankar Chougule, filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court seeking possession of a property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, alleging that he was dispossessed by the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, on 1 January 2024. The suit was filed on 28 June 2024. The respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, arguing that the plaintiff had not been in possession within six months prior to the suit. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove possession within six months. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed the issue of whether the plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The appellant argued that the plaint clearly alleged dispossession on 1 January 2024 and the suit was filed within six months, and that the court could not go beyond the plaint averments. The respondent contended that the plaintiff was not in possession and the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court held that for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11, only the plaint averments are to be considered, and the defence or evidence cannot be looked into. The plaint clearly stated that the plaintiff was in possession and was dispossessed on 1 January 2024, and the suit was filed on 28 June 2024, which is within six months. The court further held that the limitation period under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act runs from the date of dispossession, not from the date of knowledge. The trial court had erred by considering disputed facts and evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order rejecting the plaint, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The interim application and intervention application were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Court must examine plaint averments only, not defence or evidence - Plaint can be rejected only if on face value it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law - Disputed questions of fact cannot be decided at this stage (Paras 8-10) B) Limitation - Suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Limitation period of six months runs from date of dispossession, not from date of knowledge - Plaint alleging dispossession on 01/01/2024 and filed on 28/06/2024 is within limitation - Court cannot go beyond plaint allegations to determine limitation (Paras 11-13) C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Suit for possession based on prior possession - Summary remedy - Plaintiff need not prove title, only prior possession and wrongful dispossession - Suit cannot be converted into a title suit (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is barred by limitation when the plaint alleges dispossession on a specific date and the suit is filed within six months of that date, and whether the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession within six months prior to the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial court rejecting the plaint, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The interim application and intervention application were disposed of.
Law Points
- Limitation period for suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act
- 1963 is six months from date of dispossession
- not from date of knowledge
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC applies only when plaint on face value shows no cause of action or is barred by law
- Plaint cannot be rejected based on disputed facts or evidence
- Suit for possession under Section 6 is summary in nature and cannot be converted into a title suit
