Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by the applicant, Casme Industrial Park Development India Private Limited, challenging the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Viramgam, rejecting the applicant's application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC in Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 2016. The background of the case involves M/s. Hirak Biotech Limited authorizing Opponent No. 2 to alienate its immovable properties at Viramgam, leading to a registered Sale Deed No. 2256 of 2007 in favor of Opponent No. 3. The applicant, intending to develop an industrial park, purchased the lands from Opponent No. 3 by executing eleven registered sale deeds in 2016 after issuing public notices and obtaining a clear title report. After a lapse of almost nine years from the 2007 sale deed, Opponent No. 1 (Pratik Rameshchandra Shah) instituted Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 2016 challenging the 2007 sale deed, despite having lodged an FIR in 2013 on identical allegations. The applicant, though arrayed as a defendant, was not challenging the sale deeds in its favor. The applicant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was ex facie barred by limitation and devoid of any cause of action. The learned trial court rejected the application, holding that the issue of limitation was intertwined with merits. The High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the revision application, set aside the trial court's order, and rejected the plaint. The court held that the plaint on its face showed that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the sale deed was executed in 2007 and the suit was filed in 2016, beyond the three-year limitation period. The court also found that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the applicant, as the applicant's sale deeds were not challenged. The court emphasized that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be exercised based on the averments in the plaint alone, and if the plaint is ex facie barred, it must be rejected without requiring a trial.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC - Limitation - The court considered whether a suit challenging a sale deed executed in 2007, filed in 2016, was ex facie barred by limitation and devoid of cause of action. The court held that where the plaint on its face shows the suit is barred by limitation and no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, without requiring a trial on merits (Paras 1-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 2016 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the grounds that it is barred by limitation and does not disclose a cause of action.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Viramgam, and rejected the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 2016 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Cause of Action
- Rejection of Plaint
- Ex facie Barred Suit
