Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Mukund Bhavan Trust – Appellant
Versus
Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle – Respondent
Key Points: - The purpose and scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) to reject a plaint at the threshold when the suit is barred by limitation or otherwise lacking a cause of action (!) (!) (!) - The test for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is whether, taken with the documents relied upon, the averments would lead to a decree; and the Court cannot consider rival contentions or the written statement at this stage (!) (!) - Limitation constitutes a mixed question of fact and law; however, if it is evident from the plaint that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Court may reject the plaint at threshold (!) (!) - Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act provide periods for declarations and for cancellation of instruments/decrees, beginning from when the right to sue accrues or when facts entitling such relief first become known; the deemed knowledge upon registration affects limitation start in certain cases (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - There is a presumption that registered documents are valid until declared void or voidable; Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act governs cancellation of instruments and need for declarations when required to avoid serious injury (!) (!) (!) (!) - In cases of alleged fraud or misrepresentation concerning instruments or deeds, distinctions are drawn between void and voidable transactions, with time limits varying accordingly (Article 59 vs. Article 113) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
(R. Mahadevan, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the Defendant No.1 viz., Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and its trustees, against the Order dated 26th April 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in the Civil Revision Application No.904 of 2014, whereby the High Court dismissed the said application preferred by the appellants challenging the Order dated 29th April 2009 passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune2[Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”]. By the said order, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 19083[For short, “the CPC”] for rejection of plaint being barred by limitation.
3. The Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2009 against the appellants and the State of Maharashtra, inter alia for the following reliefs:
(b) to declare that other than the Plaintiff, no other person is entitled to deal with, alienate and create any third-party inter
(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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is found to be manifestly vexatious and without merit, and does not disclose a....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action and being barred by limitation if claims are based on prior known events.
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
