Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application (CRA) was filed by Defendant No.9 (the applicant) impugning an order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.25 of 2020. The Trial Court had rejected the application filed by Defendant No.9 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking dismissal of the suit and rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed in 2020 by the plaintiff (Respondent No.1) seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement for sale of the year 1989, cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2011 executed between Defendant Nos.1 to 8 and Defendant No.9, and a declaration of title. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on an undated, unstamped, and unregistered agreement of 1989. Defendant No.9, who purchased the property in 2011 and was in possession, contended that the suit was barred by limitation, that the agreement was sham and fabricated (noting that it mentioned a mobile number when mobile services were not in vogue in 1989), and that the property was governed by the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, requiring permission under Section 43A. The plaintiff argued that the suit was filed within three years of the rejection of his ALT Case No.13 of 2019 by the Tahsildar on 12.05.2020, and that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law requiring trial. The Trial Court, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that the issue of limitation could not be decided without evidence and rejected the application. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the CRA, holding that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that must be tried on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Limitation - The court held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided without trial, as the plaintiff's claim of ownership and specific performance based on an alleged 1989 agreement requires evidence. (Paras 6-7) B) Limitation - Mixed Question of Fact and Law - The court relied on precedents that the issue of limitation must be decided after evidence is led by parties, and a plaint cannot be rejected on limitation grounds without trial. (Para 6) C) Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 - Section 43A - Bar on Transfer - The court noted the defendant's submission that the suit property is amenable to the Act and sale requires permission from the Competent Authority, but did not decide this issue at the stage of rejection of plaint. (Para 3.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation and other bars, or whether the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law requiring trial.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the Trial Court's order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and must be tried on merits.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 43A Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act
- 1948
- Specific Relief Act
