2025 Supreme(SC) 44

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association – Appellant
Versus
Sri Bala & Co. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1525 of 2023
Decided on : 08-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rejection of plaint – Rejection of earlier suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not bar fresh suit on same cause of action provided right of action is not barred by law of limitation.
(2) Rejection of plaint – While considering question of rejection of plaint, it is plaint alone which has to be read meaningfully and not any averment in written statement.
(3) Limitation Act does not confer any substantive right, nor defines any right or cause of action – Law of limitation is based on delay and laches – When once time has begun to run, nothing stops it – Unless there is a complete cause of action, limitation cannot run.
(4) Article 54 of Limitation Act does not apply to second suit filed for seeking specific performance of contract.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rules 11(d) and 13 read with Section 149 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 – Rejection of plaint – Agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance – Refusal to reject plaint – In a given case where plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and plaintiff chooses to present a fresh plaint, necessarily, question arises whether such a fresh plaint is within period of limitation prescribed for filing of suit – If it is to be found by court that such a suit is barred by limitation, once again it is required to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 clause (d) – However, Section 149 of CPC confers power on court to accept payment of deficit court fee even beyond period of limitation prescribed for filing of a suit, if plaint is otherwise filed within period of limitation – Rejection of earlier suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not bar fresh suit on same cause of action provided right of action is not barred by law of limitation – Plaint has to be read holistically in order to ascertain whether it is barred by limitation and consequently, to decide if suit itself is not maintainable. (Paras 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and 8)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – While considering question of rejection of plaint, it is plaint alone which has to be read meaningfully and not any averment in written statement – It is also necessary sometimes to consider documents annexed to plaint for a holistic and comprehensive reading of plaint in order to decide whether plaint ought to be rejected or not – Earlier suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff on very same cause of action in year 1993 itself which resulted in rejection of plaint in said suit owing to non-payment of court fee – Second suit has been filed after rejection of plaint in earlier suit filed on very same cause of action and for very same relief of seeking specific performance of agreement to sell – There was also no reference to any of litigations which were pending between parties prior to filing of earlier suit which is said to have resulted in postponement of performance of contract – Second suit could not have been filed nine years after rejection of plaint in earlier suit – Second suit not having been filed within a period of three years, second suit filed by respondent/plaintiff is barred by law of limitation and is not maintainable – Plaint rejected. (Paras 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 and 9.12)

(C) Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 3 and 5 – Period of limitation – Normally, question of limitation would be a mixed question of law and fact – Law of limitation is an adjective law containing procedural rules and does not create any right in favour of any person, but simply prescribes that remedy can be exercised only up to a certain period and not beyond – Limitation Act does not confer any substantive right, nor defines any right or cause of action – Law of limitation is based on delay and laches – Unless there is a complete cause of action, limitation cannot run and there cannot be a complete cause of action unless there is a person who can sue and a person who can be sued – When once time has begun to run, nothing stops it – Barring of remedy under law of limitation on expiry of limitation period would not imply plaintiff’s right being extinguished – Only possibility of obtaining a judicial remedy to enforce right is taken away – However, in certain cases, expiry of period of limitation would extinguish plaintiff’s right to seek remedy entirely. (Paras 8.8, 9 and 9.2)

(D) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 9 and Articles 54 and 113 – Period of limitation – Generally, right to sue accrues only when cause of action arises, that is, right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means – Suit must be instituted when right asserted in suit is infringed or when there is clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by defendant against whom suit is instituted – Article 113 of Limitation Act is an omnibus Article providing for a period of limitation not covered by any of specific Articles – Article 54 provides for a limitation period for

filing suit for specific performance of a contract – Article 54 of Limitation Act does not apply to second suit filed for seeking specific performance of contract – When right to sue accrues, depends, to a large extent on facts and circumstances of a particular case keeping in view relief sought – It accrues only when a cause of action arises and for a cause of action to arise, it must be clear that averments in plaint, if found correct, should lead to a successful issue. (Paras 9.4, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8)

(E) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 9 – Period of limitation – Continuous cause of action – Once time has begun to run, it will run continuously but time ceases to run when plaintiff commences legal proceedings in respect of cause of action in question – Intervention of court in proceedings would prevent period of limitation from running and date of courts’ final order would be date for start of limitation – Ordinarily, limitation runs from earliest time at which an action can be brought and after it has commenced to run, there may be revival of a right to sue where a previous satisfaction of a claim is nullified with result that right to sue which has been suspended is reanimated. (Paras 9.10 and 9.11)

Facts of the case:

Short issue before this Court in this appeal is, whether plaint in subsequent suit for specific performance filed by plaintiff, i.e., O.S. No.49/2007, is liable to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code on the ground that said suit is barred by law of limitation.

Findings of Court:

On the basis of Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code read with Article 113 of Limitation Act by setting aside impugned orders of High Court and trial court and by allowing application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code.

Result : Appeal allowed.