High Court of Karnataka Allows Second Appeal in Injunction Suit — Rejection of Plaint Set Aside. Plaint Discloses Cause of Action and Is Not Barred by Limitation Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 19:09:38

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, M/s. Shree Garodi Steels, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, M/s. Yojaka India Private Ltd., in O.S. No. 739/2022 before the II Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru. The appellant claimed to be in possession of the suit property under a lease agreement dated 01.04.2015 and alleged that the respondent was interfering with its possession and threatening to dispossess it. The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and did not disclose a cause of action. The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The appellant appealed to the First Appellate Court (Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru) in R.A. No. 9/2023, which allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court's order. The respondent then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the second appeal, holding that the First Appellate Court had correctly set aside the rejection of the plaint. The court observed that for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff are to be considered. The plaint disclosed a cause of action as the appellant alleged possession and interference by the respondent. The question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law and could not be decided at the threshold without trial. The court also noted that the lease agreement was not terminated by a valid notice, and the appellant's possession was not shown to be permissive or illegal. Therefore, the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d). The second appeal was dismissed, and the suit was restored to the file of the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Limitation - The court must consider only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff to decide an application for rejection of plaint - The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided at the threshold unless the plaint is ex facie barred - Held that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint as the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the issue of limitation required trial (Paras 1-10).

B) Civil Procedure - Cause of Action - Suit for Injunction - Lease Agreement - Termination of Lease - The plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction based on alleged possession and lease agreement was not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose from the defendant's interference and threat to dispossess - Held that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) when the plaint discloses a cause of action (Paras 5-10).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and does not disclose a cause of action.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the order of the First Appellate Court. The suit was restored to the file of the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.

Law Points

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
Rejection of Plaint
Cause of Action
Limitation
Suit for Injunction
Lease Agreement
Termination of Lease
Adverse Possession

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 36

R.S.A. No. 2243/2023 (INJ)

2024-07-26

H.P. Sandesh

Sri K.V. Shyamaprasada (for appellant), Sri Naveen Kumar M.G. (for respondent)

M/s. Shree Garodi Steels

M/s. Yojaka India Private Ltd.

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against the order of the First Appellate Court setting aside the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the order of the First Appellate Court and restore the order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint.

Filing Reason

The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and did not disclose a cause of action.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The First Appellate Court set aside that order and allowed the appeal.

Issues

Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for being barred by limitation? Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the suit was barred by limitation as the lease was terminated in 2018 and the suit was filed in 2022. The respondent argued that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the question of limitation required trial.

Ratio Decidendi

For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff are to be considered. The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided at the threshold unless the plaint is ex facie barred. The plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by limitation.

Judgment Excerpts

The court must consider only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff to decide an application for rejection of plaint. The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided at the threshold unless the plaint is ex facie barred.

Procedural History

The appellant filed O.S. No. 739/2022 for permanent injunction. The respondent filed I.A. No. III under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of plaint. The Trial Court allowed the application on 03.02.2023. The appellant appealed to the First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 9/2023, which allowed the appeal on 30.10.2023. The respondent then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 26.07.2024.