Case Note & Summary
The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed Special Civil Suit No. 691 of 1993 in 2013 seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 13th December 1978 executed in favour of the defendants' father was illegal, null and void, and also seeking possession and permanent injunction. The defendants (applicants) immediately filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court rejected this application on 20th January 2014, holding that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 (d), and that the plaint discloses a cause of action. The defendants then filed the present civil revision application before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the trial court had not properly considered the application on merits. The court observed that if the plaint on its face shows that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d). The High Court set aside the trial court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the application, directing the trial court to examine the plaint and the law of limitation to determine whether the suit is barred by limitation. The court also continued the interim stay of further proceedings until the application is decided.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC - Cause of Action and Limitation - The trial court rejected the defendants' application for rejection of plaint holding that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and that the plaint discloses cause of action. The High Court held that the trial court erred in not considering the application on merits and that the plaint must be examined to see if it is barred by limitation on its face. (Paras 1-4) B) Limitation - Barred by Law - Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC - The High Court observed that if the plaint on its face shows that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The court must examine the plaint and the law of limitation to determine if the suit is instituted beyond the prescribed period. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of plaint on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the trial court's order dated 20th January 2014, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. The trial court was directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. The interim stay of further proceedings granted earlier was continued until the application is decided.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Limitation Act 1963
- Cause of Action
- Rejection of Plaint
- Mixed Question of Law and Fact
