Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original plaintiffs, filed Regular Civil Suit No.385 of 2022 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of Plot No.906, admeasuring 406 square yards, situated in Mahavirnagar Society, comprising Survey Nos.101, 148 and 205/1. They alleged that they and their predecessors were residing in Maharashtra for management of the property, and a Power of Attorney was executed on 27.12.1995 in favour of Rajshree, daughter of Purushottamdas Gulabdas, as guardian of Jayantilal Purshottamdas. The plaintiffs stated that till 08.03.2017, Village Form No.6 reflected their names as occupiers. They later discovered that one Mehul Chinoi, on the basis of a purported Power of Attorney, had executed a sale deed dated 03.09.1996 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 4. The plaintiffs contended that neither they nor their predecessors had executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Mehul Chinoi, and thus the sale deed was void. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present First Appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and the plaint disclosed a cause of action. The Court observed that the allegations regarding the forged Power of Attorney and the validity of the sale deed required trial and could not be decided summarily. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 26.07.2023, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Limitation - The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC holding the suit barred by limitation. The High Court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and when the plaint discloses a cause of action and raises disputed facts regarding the validity of documents, the plaint cannot be rejected summarily without a trial. (Paras 2-4) B) Property Law - Power of Attorney - Validity - The plaintiffs alleged that a Power of Attorney in favour of Mehul Chinoi was forged and that the subsequent sale deed based on it was void. The High Court held that such allegations raise triable issues which require evidence and cannot be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint. (Paras 3-4) C) Limitation Act - Bar of Limitation - Section 3 - The Trial Court's finding that the suit was barred by limitation was premature as the date of knowledge of the alleged fraud was disputed. The High Court held that the issue of limitation must be decided after trial unless the plaint is ex facie barred. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, without considering the factual disputes regarding the validity of the Power of Attorney and the sale deed.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Suit No.385 of 2022 below Exhibit 26, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Power of Attorney
- Sale Deed
- Question of Fact
- Summary Rejection
- Trial
