Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Saranpal Kaur Anand - Appellant
Versus
Praduman Singh Chandhok And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27794 of 2016)
Decided on : 28-03-2022
Whether the Single Bench i.e. the trial court could have framed the preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 with regard to the issue of limitation which was a mixed question of law and fact, for the purpose of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC? Whether the Division Bench i.e. the appellate court could have travelled beyond the scope of Appeal and taken recourse to Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which was not the issue before the Single Bench, for the purpose of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC? Whether Single Bench and Division Bench had committed an error of law apparent on the face of record by referring to the written statements and the other documents which were not part of the plaint while rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the ground that the suit was barred by law of Limitation?
Fact of the Case:
The appellant before us, Saranpal Kaur Anand, is the plaintiff who has filed a Civil Suit, C.S. (O.S.) No. 873 of 2012, seeking: a decree of declaration that the suit property bearing No. 4-C/7, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, is a joint undivided family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 9 being the successors of late Harnam Singh Anand and late Harbans Kaur; a decree of declaration that the purported sale deed dated 23rd August 1969 executed by late Harbans Kaur through her alleged attorney in favour of late Tej Kaur is a fictitious, sham, incompetent, bad, illegal, null and void; a decree of declaration that the purported sale deed dated 12th October 1995 executed by late Tej Kaur in favour of Pervinder Singh Chandhok (defendant No. 2) is fictitious, sham, incompetent, bad, illegal, nullity and void ab initio in law; and a decree for permanent injunction restraining Praduman Singh Chandhok and Pervinder Singh Chandhok (defendant Nos.1 and 2), their agents, nominees, successors, assigns, representatives etc., from raising/constructing/adding/ altering or entering into any agreement to sell or creating any third party interest, claims, or parting with possession thereof, in respect of any portion of the suit property besides seeking determination of the amount of damages and mesne profits.
Finding of the Court:
The Single Bench vide the common order dated 6th April, 2015, decided the preliminary issue along with the I.A. No. 17994/12 and IA No. 7950/14, rejecting the plaint. The operative part contained in the paras 39 and 40 of the said order reads as under: 39. The suit is apparently time barred. Hence, the plaint is rejected. The issue framed in the matter is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant nos. 1 & 2, the amendment applications filed by the plaintiff are malafide and are not maintainable as the same itself is time barred on the face of pleadings and documents placed on record. Both applications are accordingly dismissed. 40. The plaint is rejected. All pending applications are also disposed of consequently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court /Single Bench, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being RFA (OS) No.54 of 2015 under section 96 of CPC before the Appellate Court/Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench confirmed the order passed by the Single Bench and dismissed the said Appeal vide the impugned judgment and order dated 25th April, 2016.
Issues: a. Whether the Single Bench i.e. the trial court could have framed the preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 with regard to the issue of limitation which was a mixed question of law and fact, for the purpose of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC? b. Whether the Division Bench i.e. the appellate court could have travelled beyond the scope of Appeal and taken recourse to Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which was not the issue before the Single Bench, for the purpose of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC? c. Whether Single Bench and Division Bench had committed an error of law apparent on the face of record by referring to the written statements and the other documents which were not part of the plaint while rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the ground that the suit was barred by law of Limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Limitation being a mixed question of facts and law, the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 2. An application under Order VII Rule 11(d) ought to be decided solely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and not on the basis of the written statements and other documents or material. 3. A case involving disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by the way of preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC. The issue of limitation cannot be treated as a pure question of law under Order XIV Rule 2(2), in view of the settled legal position. 4. Once fraud has been pleaded in the suit, the plaint cannot be rejected without affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal stands allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The primary issue concerns whether the trial court (Single Bench) could have framed a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 regarding the limitation question, which was a mixed question of law and fact, for the purpose of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC (!) .
There is a question whether the appellate court (Division Bench) exceeded its scope of appeal by applying Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which was not the issue before the Single Bench, to reject the plaint (!) .
The correctness of the courts' reliance on documents and written statements that were not part of the plaint while rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) is challenged. The courts are accused of committing an error of law apparent on the face of record by considering extraneous materials (!) .
The legal position clarifies that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) should be based solely on the averments in the plaint and not on external documents or written statements, especially when the issue involves a mixed question of law and fact, or when fraud is pleaded, requiring an opportunity for evidence (!) (!) .
The question of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue unless the facts are admitted or undisputed, and the issue can be decided solely on the basis of the pleadings (!) (!) .
When the suit involves allegations of fraud, the limitation period may be extended if the plaintiff demonstrates that the fraud was concealed or that they could not have discovered it with reasonable diligence. The burden is on the plaintiff to specify the date of discovery of the fraud or mistake (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The pleadings must contain specific facts and particulars, especially when relying on fraud or exemption from limitation, including dates and attributes, to justify exemptions or extensions under the law (!) .
The courts should not have considered documents outside the plaint or relied on the written statements for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). Such reliance constitutes a legal error (!) .
The orders passed by the Single and Division Benches, which rejected the plaint based on extraneous materials and on the basis of issues that are not purely legal, are in violation of the statutory provisions and principles of law. These orders are liable to be quashed and set aside (!) (!) .
The procedural provisions in the CPC regarding the framing of preliminary issues, rejection of plaint, and judgments on admissions are distinct and must be applied within their scope. The exercise of inherent or suo moto powers outside these provisions is impermissible and results in legal error (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the rejection of a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation must be based solely on the averments in the plaint, without considering extraneous evidence or documents (!) .
The procedural law mandates that issues of law, especially concerning limitation, be decided only if they are purely legal questions, and cannot be resolved as preliminary issues when they involve disputed facts or questions of mixed law and fact (!) .
The orders of rejection based on the application of Order XII Rule 6, which relies on admissions outside the scope of the pleadings, are improper. Admissions must be clear, unequivocal, and unconditional to be used for such judgments (!) .
The legal framework prohibits courts from exercising inherent powers to bypass statutory procedures, and the proper course is to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law, especially when procedural violations occur (!) (!) .
Overall, procedural misapplications and reliance on extraneous materials by the courts led to a miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of the impugned orders and the restoration of the suit for proper adjudication (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
JUDGMENT :
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant before us, Saranpal Kaur Anand, is the plaintiff who has filed a Civil Suit, C.S. (O.S.) No. 873 of 2012, seeking: a decree of declaration that the suit property bearing No. 4-C/7, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, is a joint undivided family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 9 being the successors of late Harnam Singh Anand and late Harbans Kaur; a decree of declaration that the purported sale deed dated 23rd August 1969 executed by late Harbans Kaur through her alleged attorney in favour of late Tej Kaur is a fictitious, sham, incompetent, bad, illegal, null and void; a decree of declaration that the purported sale deed dated 12th October 1995 executed by late Tej Kaur in favour of Pervinder Singh Chandhok (defendant No. 2) is fictitious, sham, incompetent, bad, illegal, nullity and void ab initio in law; and a decree for permanent injunction restraining Praduman Singh Chandhok and Pervinder Singh Chandhok (defendant Nos.1 and 2), their agents, nominees, successors, assigns, representatives etc., from raising/constructing/adding/ altering or entering into any agreement to sell or creating any third party interest, claims, or parting with possession thereof, in respect of any portion of the suit property besides seeking determination of the amount of damages and mesne profits.
3. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their respective written statements contesting the suit. They also filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation.
4. By the order dated 7th February 2014, the Single Judge of the High Court settled the preliminary issue of limitation as under:
“Whether the suit as framed is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of limitation?”
5. Subsequently the plaintiff filed two applications for amendment of the plaint to incorporate prayer for possession and amending the cause of action clause, which were taken up for hearing along with hearing on the preliminary issue.
6. By the order dated 6th April 2015 the Single Judge decided the preliminary issue holding that the suit being barred by time, the plaint was liable to be rejected. The applications for amendment filed by the plaintiff were dismissed as mala fide and not maintainable.
7. The impugned order dated 25th April 2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff upholding the order rejecting the plaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The applications filed for amendment of the plaint being unnecessary were, therefore, rightly rejected by the Single Judge.
8. A decision under clause (d) of Rule 11 to Order VII1[“Order 7, Rule 11- Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;”] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) normally proceeds on ‘demurrer’. This means that the party objecting to the legal action assumes the truth of the matter alleged by the opposite party and sets up that it is insufficient in law to sustain the claim or there is some other defect on the face of the pleadings constituting a legal reason why the proceedings should not be allowed to proceed further. 2[See paragraph 14 in Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 638.] This is also the underlying principle behind clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code which applies when it appears from a statement in the plaint that the suit is barred by any law. The law would include the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 3 of the Limitation Act mandates that every suit, appeal or application instituted, preferred or filed after the prescribed period, and subject to provisions of Sections 4 to 24, shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Sub-rule (2) to Rule 2 of Order XIV3[Order XIV Rule 2(2) Court to pronounce judgment on all
The court has the authority to reject suits under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC if they are manifestly vexatious and grossly delayed, even in the absence of a plea of limitation.
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as Rejection of plaint- Plaint shall be rejected, where suit appears from statement in plaint to be barred by any law, where it is not filed in duplicate.
The limitation period for filing a suit based on fraud begins when the plaintiff first becomes aware of the fraud, not at the time of execution of the disputed documents.
(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....
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
