Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Rejection of Plaint in Suit for Specific Performance — Suit Barred by Limitation. The court held that the plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when the suit is clearly barred by limitation based on the averments in the plaint.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 13:54:09

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Romesh Satyanarayan Sharma, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.07.2005 against the respondents, Mrs. Swaran Singh Chawla and others. The suit was filed on 15.07.2019, nearly 14 years after the agreement. The respondents 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 trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The appellant appealed against that order. The High Court examined the plaint averments and found that the agreement did not fix any date for performance. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants refused to perform in 2019, but the court noted that the plaintiff had not taken any steps for 14 years. Applying Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the court held that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as the three-year period started from the date of the agreement when the plaintiff failed to perform. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the plaint.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Limitation - The court examined whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation based on the plaint averments. The agreement to sell was executed on 15.07.2005, and the suit was filed on 15.07.2019, beyond the three-year period from the date of refusal. The court held that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was barred by limitation, warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 1-10)

B) Limitation Act - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 - The court considered Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period from the date fixed for performance or from the date of notice of refusal. Since no date was fixed, the period began from 15.07.2005 when the plaintiff failed to perform, and the suit filed in 2019 was clearly barred. (Paras 5-8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaint in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as being barred by limitation.

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. The order of the trial court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is upheld.

Law Points

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
Limitation Act 1963
Cause of Action
Rejection of Plaint
Specific Performance

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (04) 85

AO/77/2021

0000-00-00

Romesh Satyanarayan Sharma

Mrs. Swaran Singh Chawla & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against order rejecting plaint in suit for specific performance

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the order rejecting the plaint and to allow the suit to proceed

Filing Reason

Appellant claimed that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint as barred by limitation

Previous Decisions

Trial court allowed application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and rejected the plaint

Issues

Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action? Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the suit was within limitation as the refusal occurred in 2019 Respondents argued that the suit was filed 14 years after the agreement and was clearly barred by limitation

Ratio Decidendi

A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if it is barred by limitation on the face of it. For a suit for specific performance, limitation runs from the date fixed for performance or from the date of notice of refusal. If no date is fixed, the period starts from the date of the agreement when the plaintiff fails to perform.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when the suit is clearly barred by limitation based on the averments in the plaint. Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a three-year period from the date fixed for performance or from the date of notice of refusal.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance in 2019. The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of plaint. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The appellant appealed to the High Court.