Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dismissed Civil Revision Application No.117 of 2025 filed by Ramesh Bhagirath Rander (applicant/defendant no.8) challenging the trial Court's order rejecting his application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The applicant sought rejection of the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2023 filed by Anil Hariprasad Jejani (non-applicant no.1/plaintiff) on grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked cause of action. The suit sought declaration that a sale-deed dated 24.10.2020 was not binding due to fraud and specific performance of agreements dated 06.10.1995 and 21.11.1995. The Court held that for considering rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, only the plaint averments should be examined without considering evidence. The Court found the plaintiff's case was based on fraud in the execution of the sale-deed dated 24.10.2020, making the limitation period three years from the date of knowledge under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the suit was filed in 2023, it was within limitation. The Court also held that parallel objection proceedings under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 CPC in execution case did not make the plaint an abuse of process. The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, and the trial Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging order dated 20.12.2024 passed by trial Court rejecting application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) -- Applicant (original defendant no.8) sought rejection of plaint in Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2023 filed by non-applicant no.1 (original plaintiff) -- Suit sought declaration that sale-deed dated 24.10.2020 was not binding on plaintiff due to fraud and specific performance of agreements dated 06.10.1995 and 21.11.1995 -- Applicant contended plaint was barred by limitation and lacked cause of action -- High Court held that for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, only plaint averments should be considered without evidence -- Court found plaintiff's case based on fraud in execution of sale-deed dated 24.10.2020, making limitation period three years from date of knowledge -- Since suit filed in 2023, it was within limitation -- Parallel objection proceedings under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 CPC in execution case did not make plaint abuse of process -- Civil Revision Application dismissed
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of Consideration was whether the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2023 should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on grounds of being barred by limitation and lacking cause of action
Final Decision
Civil Revision Application dismissed -- Trial Court's order dated 20.12.2024 rejecting application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) upheld -- Suit to proceed before trial Court
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC) -- Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC) -- Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC) -- Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC) -- Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC) -- Limitation Act
- 1963 -- Principles for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC -- Doctrine of res judicata -- Abuse of process of law
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 71
Civil Revision Application No.117 of 2025
Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.
Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri H.D. Dangre, counsel for the applicant, Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the non-applicant no.1, Shri S.B. Mohta, counsel for the non-applicant nos.2 to 8
Anil Hariprasad Jejani, Anil Trimbakrao Kheta (HUF), Anil Trimbakrao Kheta, Pooja Anil Kale, Sushila Suresh Chawada, Prakash Maganbhai Kheta, Anita Pramod Shinde, Sanjay Vasantjibhai Kheta
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging trial Court order rejecting application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
Remedy Sought
Applicant (defendant no.8) sought rejection of plaint in Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2023 on grounds of being barred by limitation and lacking cause of action
Filing Reason
Applicant challenged trial Court's order dated 20.12.2024 rejecting his application for rejection of plaint
Previous Decisions
Trial Court rejected application for rejection of plaint by order dated 20.12.2024 -- In related execution proceedings, objection filed by non-applicant no.1 under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 CPC was initially rejected on 11.04.2023, then revived by High Court order dated 23.10.2024 in First Appeal No.304 of 2023
Issues
Whether the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2023 should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as being barred by limitation
Whether the plaint should be rejected for failure to disclose any cause of action
Whether the suit constituted an abuse of process of law due to parallel proceedings in execution case
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant contended plaint was barred by limitation as relief for specific performance of agreements dated 06.10.1995 and 21.11.1995 was time-barred
Applicant argued plaint lacked cause of action and was an abuse of process due to parallel objection proceedings under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 CPC in execution case
Respondent argued plaint was based on fraud in sale-deed dated 24.10.2020, making limitation period three years from date of knowledge, and suit filed in 2023 was within limitation
Ratio Decidendi
For rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), only averments in plaint should be considered without evidence -- Where plaint alleges fraud in execution of sale-deed, limitation period is three years from date of knowledge under Article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 -- Parallel proceedings in execution case under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) do not automatically make plaint abuse of process
Judgment Excerpts
Held that for considering rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), only the plaint averments should be examined without considering evidence
Held that plaintiff's case was based on fraud in execution of sale-deed dated 24.10.2020, making limitation period three years from date of knowledge under Article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963
Held that since suit was filed in 2023, it was within limitation
Held that parallel objection proceedings under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in execution case did not make plaint abuse of process
Procedural History
Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2023 filed by non-applicant no.1 for declaration and specific performance -- Applicant filed application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) at Exhibit 10 -- Trial Court rejected application by order dated 20.12.2024 -- Applicant filed Civil Revision Application No.117 of 2025 under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) -- High Court heard arguments on 05.12.2025 and pronounced judgment on 10.02.2026
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 115, Section 151, Section 47
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 59
