Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mr. Nilesh Sangodkar, filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, challenging the order dated 13/12/2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 'F' Court, Mapusa, which dismissed his application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b), (c) and (d) CPC. The suit was filed by the respondents (legal heirs of late Rohidas Atmaram Calangutkar) against the applicant and others, seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by the applicant in favour of the bank was null and void, and for permanent injunction restraining the bank from taking possession of the suit property. The applicant contended that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, was barred by limitation, and was undervalued. The High Court held that for an application under Order VII Rule 11, the court must look only at the plaint averments and not at the defence or evidence. The plaint alleged that the applicant had created a cloud on the plaintiffs' title by executing a sale deed in favour of the bank, and that the bank had issued a notice under the SARFAESI Act threatening dispossession. This disclosed a cause of action. The issue of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law; the plaint stated that the cause of action arose in 2016 when the bank issued the notice, and the suit was filed in 2017, which was within limitation. Regarding undervaluation, the trial court had already directed the plaintiff to pay deficit court fees, and the revision against that direction was not maintainable. The court found no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court must examine only the plaint averments to determine if a cause of action is disclosed; if the plaint discloses a cause of action, the application for rejection must be dismissed. The applicant's contention that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked cause of action was rejected as the plaint alleged a cloud on title and threatened dispossession, which constituted a cause of action. (Paras 2-10) B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Limitation - The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided in an application under Order VII Rule 11 unless the plaint is ex-facie barred. The plaint alleged that the cause of action arose in 2016 when the bank issued a notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), and the suit was filed in 2017, which was within limitation. (Paras 11-15) C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Valuation - The issue of undervaluation requires a preliminary issue to be framed under Order VII Rule 11(b) read with Section 11 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and cannot be decided without an inquiry. The trial court had directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fees, and the revision against that direction was not maintainable. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b), (c) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on the grounds of no cause of action, undervaluation, and being barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, holding that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, the limitation issue was a mixed question of fact and law, and the valuation issue was already addressed by the trial court's direction to pay deficit court fees.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- rejection of plaint
- cause of action
- limitation
- plaint averments
- demurrer
- legal notice
- suit for declaration and injunction
- co-operative bank
- mortgage
- sale deed
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
