K. R. SHRIRAM, RAJESH S PATIL
Altaf Fakir Baig – Appellant
Versus
Goel Ganga Deve. (IND) Pvt. Ltd. Through Directors A) A. J. Goel B) A. J. Goel C) J. S. Goel D) D. R. Thipse – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 31st August 2021, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Pune in Special Civil Suit No.794 of 2021, Appellants have preferred this First Appeal. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court rejected Appellants’ plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”, for brevity), as barred by law of limitation.
2. Appeal was listed for admission today. Since the issue was short, i.e., could trial Court summarily reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the ground of law of limitation, since limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, with the consent of the counsel we decided to take up the Appeal for final hearing at admission stage.
3. It is Appellants’ case that they have averred in the plaint as to when the cause of action arose and Appellants should be given an opportunity in trial to prove and establish those averments, the issue of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact. It is also Appellants’ case that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power conferred on
Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra) Dead
L.C. Hanumanthappa (Since deceased) Represented by his Legal Representatives Vs. H.B. Shivakumar
McDermott Internation INC Vs.Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors.
M/s.Lata Construction and Ors. Vs. Dr.Ramchandra Ramniklal Shah and Another
Salim D. Agboatwala Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Ors.
Khatri Hotels Private Limted & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead)
Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Krishna Developers, Mumbai and Ors.
The determination of limitation as a mixed question of law and fact necessitates trial unless the plaint is illusory.
Point of Law : Jurisdiction of the court to take action under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC can arise only in case where the pleadings in the plaint are sufficient to disclose the bar to the suit, a....
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
A suit can be rejected if it is barred by limitation, and the limitation period begins when the right to sue first accrues, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue first accrues when the fact first comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and if a suit is filed beyond the limitation perio....
(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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.