Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Siddesh B.T. Umesh, filed a suit (O.S.No.2366/2018) before the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction against the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and M/s. Sudarshan Silks. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of a property bearing No.7/1/79, Rathnavilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, and alleged that the BBMP had illegally demolished a portion of his property and that the third defendant was attempting to encroach upon it. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of limitation and res judicata, contending that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit (O.S.No.1234/2015) which was dismissed and that the present suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the plaint averments and found that the suit was based on a continuing cause of action and that the earlier suit was for a different relief. The court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint unless the plaint is ex facie barred. The court also held that the principle of res judicata did not apply as the earlier suit was for a different relief. The High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal, directing that the suit be restored and disposed of in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) - Limitation - The court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint unless the plaint is ex facie barred. The plaint disclosed a continuing cause of action and the suit was not barred by limitation. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Res Judicata - The court held that the earlier suit was for a different relief and the present suit was based on a subsequent cause of action, hence the principle of res judicata did not apply. The plaint cannot be rejected on this ground. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 - The court reiterated that for rejection of plaint, only the plaint averments are to be considered and not the defence. The Trial Court erred in considering the written statement and other documents. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC on grounds of limitation and res judicata.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.2366/2018, and directed that the suit be restored to file and disposed of in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Limitation Act
- Res Judicata
- Cause of Action
