Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Calcutta)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Sulanga Bose & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 1848 of 2022
Decided on : 14-03-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53-A – Rejection of plaint – Suit for declaration simpliciter – Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring other relevant parts of plaint is impermissible – While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Court has to go through entire plaint averments and cannot reject plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring other relevant parts of plaint – It cannot be said at this stage that suit is barred by limitation on face of it – When suit is for a decree of permanent injunction and it is averred that plaintiffs are in possession of suit property pursuant to agreement and thereafter, they have developed land and that they are in continuous possession since more than twelve years and they are also paying taxes to Corporation, cause of action can be said to have arisen on the date on which possession is sought to be disturbed – If that be so, suit for decree for permanent injunction cannot be said to be barred by limitation – Plaint cannot be rejected partially – Even otherwise, reliefs sought are interconnected – Whether plaintiffs shall be entitled to any relief under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act or not has to be considered at the time of trial, but at this stage it cannot be said that suit for relief sought under Section 53A would not be maintainable at all and therefore plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in rejecting plaint while exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court allowing C.O. and quashing and setting aside order passed by trial court refusing to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and consequently rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, quashed and set aside – Application submitted by original defendants to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stands dismissed – Order passed by trial court stands restored – Now, trial to proceed further in accordance with law and on its own merits. (Paras 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No. 1417 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said petition and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and consequently has rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable as against actual owner, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
High Court has committed a grave error in allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejecting plaint.
Whatever observations are made by this Court in the present order shall be confined to deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only and the trial court to finally decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence led.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CO. No. 1417 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said petition and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and consequently has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable as against the actual owner, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 That the respondents herein - original plaintiffs had instituted a Title Suit No. 166 of 2010 against the respondents herein (original defendants) in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sealdah. The plaintiffs in the suit prayed for the following reliefs:-
aa) for enforcement of the agreement dated 28.4.1995 directing the Principal defendant to execute and register Deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs;
b) For a decree for permanent order of injunction restraining the aforesaid defendant and his men and agent from causing any interference and/or any obstruction to the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit property and further restraining the defendant from making any attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs forcefully and illegally from the suit property;
c) For temporary injunction with ad-interim Rule on similar effect in terms of prayer (b);
xxxxxxxxxx"
2.2 Having served with the suit notice, the defendants submitted an application before the trial court requesting to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable. That the trial court rejected the said application and refused to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial court refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the original defendants preferred revision application/application before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial court and consequently has allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and has rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable against the actual owner.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation as well as the suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable against the original owner, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri Ankur Sood, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has erred in allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. It is submitted that while holding that the suit would be barred by limitation, the High Court has not at all considered the entire suit averments and has not considered the averments in the plaint as a whole.
3.1 It is contended that as
(1) Rejection of plaint – Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring other relevant parts of plaint is impermissible – Court has to go th....
(1) Rejection of plaint – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defen....
A suit can be rejected if it is barred by limitation, and the limitation period begins when the right to sue first accrues, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided based solely on the averments in the plaint. The court emphasized that such issues require evidence and should be ....
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without determining if it discloses a cause of action, especially when limitation is a mixed question of law and....
A perusal of the observations made indicates that the Court while laying down the above proposition has used the word ‘ordinarily’ and has not laid down that even in a case where the issue of limitat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
