The court held that applications for plaint rejection on grounds like limitation and res judicata necessitate detailed examination during trial; objections cannot be resolved solely from the plaint.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are rustic villagers with limited means, who are barely able to manage their day-to-day livelihood, and on account of acute financial constraints they were unable to approach this Hon’ble Court within the prescribed period; it is further submitted that the applicants are not conversant with legal procedures and were unaware of the intricacies of judicial proceedings, and for these bona fide and unavoidable reasons, an unintentional delay of 303 days has occurred in filing the present revision, which is neither deliberate nor intentional but solely attributable to circumstances beyond their control.

3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 1/2025 is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned 10th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 223A/2023, whereby the application filed by the applicants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the trial Court, holding that the grounds raised by the applicants—namely that the suit is barred by limitation, that the plaint has not been properly valued and requisite court fees have not been paid, that there is no cause of action, and that the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata—are matters which require adjudication during the course of trial and cannot be decided at the threshold while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, on the face of the record, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and is further vitiated on account of undervaluation, as the plaintiff has failed to correctly value the suit and to pay the requisite court fees in accordance with law. It is contended that no valid or subsisting cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff for filing the present suit and that the same is also expressly hit by the principles of res judicata, the issues having already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of these patent legal bars, the plaint was liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the trial Court has committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the said application on the erroneous premise that the issues involved are disputed questions of fact which can be decided only during the course of trial, despite the fact that the defects pointed out are apparent from the plaint itself

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that where, on a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that the suit is prima facie barred by limitation, discloses no legally sustainable cause of action, and is also hit by the principles of res judicata, the Court is under a bounden duty to reject or dismiss the suit at the very threshold, at the initial stage itself, without relegating the parties to a full-fledged trial or awaiting the recording of evidence, as continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in unnecessary harassment and wastage of valuable judicial time.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has passed a well reaso