Case Note & Summary
The appellant, as plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 26.11.1984 executed by A. Gundappa in respect of four sites. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and did not disclose a cause of action. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff appealed. The High Court held that for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11, only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff are to be considered; the defence cannot be taken into account. The plaint clearly stated that the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract and that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform. The issue of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law that could not be decided at that stage. The impugned order was set aside and the suit was restored.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) - The court must consider only the plaint averments and documents annexed thereto; the defence cannot be looked into. The plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by limitation on its face. Held that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and did not disclose a cause of action.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.04.2016 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.25570/2010 is set aside. The suit is restored to the file of the trial court for disposal in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Specific Performance
- Agreement of Sale
- Limitation
- Cause of Action
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (01) 15
Regular First Appeal No.1255 of 2016
Tomy Sebastian, Reny Sebastian, Krishnamurthy, V.S. Narayana
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against rejection of plaint in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale.
Remedy Sought
The appellant (plaintiff) sought to set aside the order rejecting the plaint and restore the suit.
Filing Reason
The trial court allowed the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, rejecting the plaint on grounds of limitation and lack of cause of action.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (LVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) passed the order dated 27.04.2016 on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.25570/2010, allowing the application and rejecting the plaint.
Issues
Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for specific performance.
Whether the suit was barred by limitation on the face of the plaint.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action and the issue of limitation was a mixed question of fact that could not be decided under Order VII Rule 11.
The respondents contended that the suit was barred by limitation and the plaint did not disclose a cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
For the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff are to be considered; the defence cannot be looked into. The plaint disclosed a cause of action and the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law that could not be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaint disclosed a cause of action and the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law that could not be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint.
For the purpose of Order VII Rule 11, only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff are to be considered; the defence cannot be looked into.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.25570/2010 for specific performance. The defendants filed I.A.No.7 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC. The trial court allowed the application on 27.04.2016, rejecting the plaint. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court in RFA No.1255/2016, which was allowed on 02.01.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), Order XLI Rule 1, Section 96
