2024 Supreme(SC) 1234

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14807 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18977 of 2016)
Decided On : 20-12-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 defendants.
(2) Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and question of rejecting plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing evidence on record.
(3) Invalidation of a document – There is presumption in law that a registered document is validly executed and is valid until it is declared as illegal.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Documents filed alongwith plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Test for exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if averments made in plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed – When application to reject plaint is filed, averments in plaint and documents annexed therewith alone are germane – Averments in application can be taken into account only to consider whether case falls within any of sub-rules of Order VII Rule 11 by considering averments in plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defendants – Civil Courts including High Court cannot go into rival contentions at that stage. (Paras 11 and 12)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Articles 58, 59 and 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Rejection of plaint – Bar of limitation – Special Civil Suit – Possession of immovable property or any interest therein, based on title can be sought within twelve years – Plaintiff has failed to sue appellant/defendant or State for possession within twelve years – Title claim of plaintiff is barred by limitation and claim for possession is also barred and relief of recovery of possession is also hopelessly barred by limitation – Plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he is entitled for relief of declaration of ownership of suit properties except by way of reliance of resolutions of government, which has lost its force in view of decree of Civil Court and subsequent compromise decrees – Decrees had also attained finality as neither the plaintiff nor his ancestors have challenged the same in time – Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and question of rejecting plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing evidence on record – However, in cases like this, where it is glaring from plaint averments that suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, Courts should not be hesitant in granting relief and drive parties back to Trial Court – Alleged cause of action is also found to be creation of fiction – Plaint is liable to be rejected at threshold – However, Trial Court erroneously dismissed application filed by appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC – High Court also erred in affirming the same – Orders so passed by Courts below set aside and application filed by appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC allowed by rejecting plaint in Special Civil Suit filed by Respondent. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27)

(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 31 – Invalidation of a document – There is presumption in law that a registered document is validly executed and is valid until it is declared as illegal – As per Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, declaration to adjudge documents as void or voidable must be sought if it causes a serious injury – Document is void only if there is misrepresentation on its character and when there is misrepresentation in contents, it is only voidable. (Paras 14 and 19)

Facts of the case:

By impugned order, Trial Court rejected application filed by appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for rejection of plaint being barred by limitation.

Findings of Court:

Spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is only for Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. Courts by being reluctant only cause more harm to the defendants by forcing them to undergo the ordeal of leading evidence.

Result : Appeal allowed.