Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was preferred by the appellants, original plaintiffs, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2020 below Exh.13. The learned trial Court allowed the application preferred by the original defendant Nos.12 to 14 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, thereby rejecting the plaint. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellants had filed Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2020 against the respondents for declaration, cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.02.2019 and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs claimed that the predecessors-in-title of the defendant Nos.1 to 10 had executed a notarized agreement to sale dated 12.07.1991 in respect of new tenure land bearing Survey No.579, admeasuring 5463 sq.mtrs. situated at Village: Ognaj, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.5 per sq.yrd., totaling Rs.32,670/-, and the plaintiffs paid Rs.25,000/- by cheque on 12.07.1991. The plaintiffs alleged that they were put in possession of the suit land in part performance of the agreement. However, the defendants executed a sale deed dated 19.02.2019 in favor of defendant Nos.12 to 14, which the plaintiffs sought to cancel. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The trial court allowed the application, rejecting the plaint. The High Court, after hearing the learned advocate for the appellants, held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law which could not be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11. The court observed that the suit was filed on 19.02.2020, within three years of the sale deed dated 19.02.2019, and thus was not ex facie barred by limitation. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, 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 - Cause of Action - The trial court rejected the plaint holding that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. The High Court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law which could not be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded for trial. (Paras 1-16) B) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Cancellation of Sale Deed - The plaintiffs sought cancellation of a sale deed dated 19.02.2019 and specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 12.07.1991. The High Court held that the suit was not ex facie barred by limitation as the cause of action arose on the date of the sale deed and the suit was filed within three years. (Paras 3-16) C) Specific Relief - Agreement to Sale - Part Performance - The plaintiffs claimed that they were put in possession of the suit land in part performance of the agreement to sale. The High Court noted that such a claim could not be rejected at the threshold without trial. (Paras 3-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned trial Court was justified in allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and rejecting the plaint in a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2020 below Exh.13, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Cause of Action
- Limitation
- Agreement to Sale
- Suit for Specific Performance
- Cancellation of Sale Deed
- Rejection of Plaint
