Case Note & Summary
The present civil revision application was filed by the original defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.1600/2012 pending before the 16th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad. The defendant had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court dismissed that application by a brief order, which was challenged in this revision. The plaintiffs (respondents) had filed the suit for declaration that a sale deed dated 28.4.1995 executed by some of the defendants in favor of defendant No.1 was not binding on them and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The defendant argued that the suit was filed in 2012, more than 17 years after the sale deed, and thus was clearly barred by limitation. The plaintiffs contended that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and could not be decided at the threshold. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application. The court observed that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the question of limitation depended on facts such as the date of knowledge of the plaintiffs, which could only be determined after recording evidence. Therefore, the revision application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The court clarified that the observations made were only for the purpose of deciding the revision and would not influence the trial court's decision on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Limitation - The court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and cannot be decided at the threshold without trial. The application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rightly dismissed by the trial court as the plaint disclosed a cause of action and limitation required evidence. (Paras 1-5) B) Limitation Act - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Limitation - The suit was filed for declaration that the sale deed was not binding and for permanent injunction. The court observed that the question of limitation depends on the date of knowledge of the plaintiff and other facts, which cannot be determined without recording evidence. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in a suit for declaration and injunction can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of limitation when the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Observations made are only for the purpose of deciding the revision and shall not influence the trial court on merits.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Limitation Act 1963
- Rejection of plaint
- Mixed question of law and fact
- Threshold determination
