The issue regarding limitation is a triable issue and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Mulimani, J. - Petitioners have filed the present writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore on I.A.No.III filed by defendant No.10 in O.S.NO.1839/2006. A copy whereof is at Annexure-C, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') and Section 6 (h) (3) of Transfer of Property Act,1882 has been dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the schedule property by virtue of order dated 28.9.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore in LRF.No.2384/75-76 and a consequential relief of permanent injunction.

Petitioner No.6 herein being defendant No.10 before the trial Court, has filed a detailed written statement.

During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.10 moved an application under order VII Rule 11 (d) read with section 151 of CPC for rejection of plaint contending that the suit is barred by law or dismiss the proceedings as it is barred by law. The application is also filed under Section 6(h) (3) of Transfer of Property Act,1882.

Plaintiffs opposed the application by filing objections. The trial Court, after hearing the matter, has dismissed the application.

3. Sri.Eugene Prabhu Barrot, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the order of the trial court is contrary to law as to its probabilities of the case.

That the suit filed by plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a time limit of three years to obtain any declaration from the time when the right to sue first accrues.

Learned counsel submitted that plaintiffs are claiming declaration on the basis of an order which is alleged to have been passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore in LRF.No.2384/75-76 way back in the year 1979. But strangely, plaintiffs approached the Court only in the year 2006. Therefore, defendant no 10 was constrained to make an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint.

It has also been contended that the declaration is sought on the basis of a document which is not in existence. Defendant No.10 has made necessary verification through RTI and it is found that no order has been passed by the Land Tribunal, as alleged by the plaintiffs, in the plaint. Hence, it is sought to be urged that plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief, much less, as sought in the plaint.

It has also been vehemently contended that as per Section 6(h)(3) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the plaintiffs are legally disqualified to be transferees.

A further submission was made that the relief sought by plaintiffs is opposed to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Therefore, on these grounds, petitioner No 6 - defendant No.10 moved application. But the trial court has erroneously dismissed the application. Thus, the present writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the papers and the order passed by the trial Court.

5. This is a simple case, wherein plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of the order dated 28.9.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore in LRF No.2384/75-76 and a consequential relief of permanent injunction.

Petitioner No.6 herein being defendant No.10 has filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments and that an application for rejection of plaint was filed. The trial Court has rejected the same. Reference is invited to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which deals with rejection of plaint.

A bare perusal of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC shows that plaint can be rejected only if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, if conditions enume