The determination of cause of action and the nature of the transaction as well as the applicable limitation period are questions of fact that should be based on the averments in the plaint.

JAYANT NATH, J.

CM No. 25470-71/2016 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 683/2016 and CM No. 25469/2016 (stay)

1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 06.02.2016 and 09.05.2016 passed by the trial court. By the order dated 06.02.2016, the trial dismissed the application of the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.

2. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for recover of Rs. 8,22,500/-. The payment was said to be a friendly loan. There is further an averment made by the plaintiff/respondent that at the time of grant of the loan it was agreed that the same would be returned as and when demanded by the respondent and therefore, no period for refund of the loan was fixed between the parties. In the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 PC, it was urged that the suit is covered under Article 19 of the Limitation Act as the loan had been given on 01.02.2011, the period of limitation had expired inasmuch as the suit for recovery was filed on 24th September 2014.

3. The trial court by its order dated 06.02.2016 noted the averments made by the respondent in the plaint whereby it was categorically stated that there was an agreement between the respondent and the petitioner to the effect that the loan shall be returned by the petitioner as and when demanded by the respondent. Based on this averment in the plaint, it was held by the trial court that Article 19 of the Limitation Act would not apply and Article 22 of the Limitation Act would be attracted, meaning thereby the limitation period of three years would commence only when the respondent makes a demand.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a review petition in which again it was strenuously contended that the transaction is a loan and not a deposit and hence, the appropriate provision would be Article 19 of the Limitation Act. That review petition was also dismissed on 09.05.2016.

5. Order VII Rule 11 CPC reads as follows:-

“11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9.

Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

6. The settled legal position is that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has jurisdiction to reject the plaint where it does not disclose any cause of action, where the relief claimed is under-valued and the valuation is not corrected within a time fixed by the Court and that the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. For the purpose of rejection of the plaint, the Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action, which requires determination, the mere fact that the plaintiff has a weak case and may not succeed would not be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In the above contex