Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Rejection of Order VII Rule 11 CPC Application in Property Suit — Plaint Discloses Cause of Action and Is Not Barred by Limitation.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal arises from a property dispute over Plot No. 1480 in Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra. The appellants, original defendants, challenged the rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the trial court, which was affirmed by the Bombay High Court. The respondents, original plaintiffs, filed Special Civil Suit No. 80/2022 seeking specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984 and a declaration regarding a Power of Attorney dated 28.02.1991. The appellants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action as it alleged an agreement to sell and possession, and the issue of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law that could not be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court considered whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action. Held that the plaint, which alleged an unregistered agreement to sell and a Power of Attorney, and sought specific performance and declaration, disclosed a cause of action and could not be rejected at the threshold (Paras 6-8).

B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Limitation - The court examined whether the suit was barred by limitation. Held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without a full trial (Paras 9-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 80/2022 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the grounds of lack of cause of action and being barred by limitation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the trial court and the High Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Law Points

  • Order VII Rule 11 CPC
  • Cause of Action
  • Limitation
  • Rejection of Plaint
  • Power of Attorney
  • Unregistered Agreement to Sell
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (SC) (01) 188

Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27748 of 2025)

2026-01-01

Sanjay Karol, J.

2026 INSC 664

Shobha Vasant Bhoir & Ors.

Soni @ Vandana Gurumukhdas Jagiasi & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a suit for specific performance and declaration.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Filing Reason

Appellants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action.

Previous Decisions

Trial court rejected the application on 30.09.2023; High Court affirmed on 30.06.2025.

Issues

Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action? Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the agreement to sell was executed in 1984 and the Power of Attorney in 1991, and the suit filed in 2022 was hopelessly barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action. Respondents argued that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and limitation was a mixed question of fact and law.

Ratio Decidendi

An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be decided on the averments in the plaint alone. The plaint disclosed a cause of action, and the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that cannot be decided at the threshold without a full trial.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaint, as it stands, does disclose a cause of action. The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Procedural History

The respondents filed Special Civil Suit No. 80/2022 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. The appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Exh. 42 & 45) which was rejected on 30.09.2023. The appellants filed Civil Revision Application No. 242 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 30.06.2025. The appellants then filed SLP(C) No. 27748 of 2025 before the Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal and dismissed.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Teacher's Appeal for Enhanced Superannuation Age Benefits in Aided Private Institution Case. Teacher in Government Aided Private College Entitled to Retirement at 65 Years and Arrears of Salary for Intervening Period Despite Not ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Rejection of Order VII Rule 11 CPC Application in Property Suit — Plaint Discloses Cause of Action and Is Not Barred by Limitation.