Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a suit filed by the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(iii) (the plaintiff) against the appellants (defendants) seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and specific performance of a contract based on a registered sale deed dated 13.10.1983. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had agreed to sell certain property and executed the sale deed, but the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The suit was filed on 29.06.2011. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 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. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, restoring the suit for trial on merits. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present appeal before the High Court. The High Court framed the issue as whether the suit deserved to be nipped in the bud by rejection of plaint on limitation grounds. The court noted 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 on its face is barred by limitation. The plaint alleged that the defendants were ready and willing to perform the contract and that the cause of action was continuing, which required trial to determine the exact date of refusal. The court held that the appellate court had correctly restored the suit for trial on merits. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellate court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC - Limitation - The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC unless the plaint on its face is barred by limitation. The court must consider the averments in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff to determine if the suit is manifestly barred. (Paras 3-10) B) Limitation Act - Specific Performance - Article 54 - Suit for specific performance of contract must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance or from the date of notice of refusal. The plaint alleged that the defendants were ready and willing to perform and that the cause of action was continuing, which requires trial to determine the exact date of refusal. (Paras 4-8) C) Civil Procedure - Appeal Against Order - Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC - An appeal lies against an order rejecting or allowing rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The appellate court can interfere if the trial court's order is perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of law. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether proceedings initiated by the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(iii) in the form of suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of contract, deserved to be nipped in the bud by rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellate court's order restoring the suit for trial on merits. The court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC unless the plaint on its face is barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC
- Limitation Act 1963
- Rejection of plaint
- Mixed question of law and fact
- Prima facie case
