Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri P.R. Chenna Reddy, filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), challenging the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 4224/2017, dismissing I.A. No. V filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint. The respondents/plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking declaration of title and possession of a property, claiming title through an unregistered sale deed dated 20.03.1995 executed by one Ramaiah @ Jogappa in favour of their father Narayanaswamy, and a will dated 20.03.1996 alleged to have been executed by Ramaiah. The petitioner/defendant contended that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by limitation. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the issues of limitation and cause of action were mixed questions of fact and law that could not be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel (the respondents were absent), examined the plaint allegations. The court noted that the sale deed was unregistered and the will was not probated, and that the suit was filed in 2017, more than 20 years after the alleged cause of action. Relying on the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments, the court held that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was clearly barred by limitation. The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the trial court's order, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) - Cause of Action - The plaint must disclose a clear cause of action; if the plaint on a meaningful reading does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected. The court held that the plaint filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and possession based on an unregistered sale deed and an unproved will did not disclose any cause of action as the sale deed was unregistered and the will was not probated. (Paras 1-20) B) Limitation - Barred by Limitation - Order VII Rule 11(d) - The suit for declaration and possession filed in 2017 based on an alleged sale deed of 1995 and a will of 1996 was clearly barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the cause of action arose in 1995/1996. The court held that the plaint was liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. (Paras 21-30) C) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 - Duty of Court - The court must examine the plaint allegations alone and not the defence; if the plaint on its face shows that the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint must be rejected. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application and that the plaint was liable to be rejected. (Paras 31-40)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint, despite the plaint not disclosing a cause of action and being barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 4224/2017, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC
- Rejection of plaint
- Cause of action
- Limitation
- Unregistered sale deed
- Will
- Declaration of title
- Possession
