Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
Whiteswan Buildcon LLP - Applicant
Versus
Thakor Praveenji Mangaji - Respondent
R/Civil Revision Application No. 497 of 2021 With Civil Application (For Vacating Stay) No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Limitation Act - Civil Suit - Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a Special Civil Suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale-deed and a share in the suit property. The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, citing the suit as barred by the Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was instituted to frustrate the rights of the defendants and was barred by the Limitation Act. The impugned order rejecting the application seeking rejection of the plaint was quashed and set aside, and the Civil Revision Application was allowed. The plaint was rejected.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was barred by the Limitation Act and whether the cause of action for the suit was illusory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was barred by the Limitation Act as the cause of action for the suit was illusory and appeared to have been devised to frustrate the rights of the defendants.
Final Decision: The impugned order rejecting the application seeking rejection of the plaint was quashed and set aside, and the Civil Revision Application was allowed. The plaint was rejected.
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.
2. The present revision application has been filed for the following prayer :
3. The revision application emanates from the judgement and order dated 04.09.2021, wherein and whereby the application below Exh.28 has been rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint being Special Civil Suit No.244 of 2018.
4. The parties shall be referred as per their original status in the suit proceedings.
5. The plaintiffs have instituted Special Civil Suit No.244 of 2018 seeking cancellation of the registered sale-deed No.195 of 2006 dated 22.11.2006 for getting the share in the suit property bearing Block No.187 admeasuring 3-13-64 Hec.-Are-sq.mtrs. of Village Raisan, Dist. Gandhinagar contending inter alia that the Revenue Change Entry No.2157, which was mutated on 07.06.2005, whereby the heirs of late Bhagwanji Maganji and Pratapji Maganji came to be brought on the revenue record. It is mentioned in the plaint that the late mother of the plaintiffs, though was the heir of late Bhagwanji Maganji, her name is not brought on record and the plaintiffs’ mother having died on 17.03.2003, but in Change Entry No.2157, the names of the plaintiffs are not mutated and they came to know on 17.07.2018, when they applied for the certified copy of Village Form No.7/12 extract and hence, they instituted the suit against the defendants seeking setting aside the sale-deed, which was registered on 22.11.2006.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Shelat appearing for the applicant-defendant No.23 has submitted that on coming to know about such suit, the application below Exh.28 was filed for seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which has been rejected by the order dated 04.09.2021. It is submitted that the suit is barred by the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) since the suit is instituted for setting aside the registered sale-deed executed on 22.11.2006. It is submitted that the cause of action, which is shown to have occurred on 17.07.2018 by extracting the copies of the entries mutated in Village Form No.7/12 is concocted cause in order to dilute the limitation period. It is submitted that as per the settled proposition of law, the plaintiffs can be said to have deemed knowledge of sale deed when it was registered i.e. on 22.11.2006 and also of the certified revenue entries.
6.1 In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dilboo (Smt) (dead) By Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Dhanraji (Smt) (dead) & Ors., (2000) 7 S.C.C. 702. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2011) 9 S.C.C. 126 and in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh, (2020) 16 S.C.C. 601 and Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), (2020) 7 S.C.C. 366. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order rejecting the application below Exh.28 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC may be quashed and set aside and the plaint may be ordered to be returned.
7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Sharma appearing for the respondent No.1 to 3-original plaintiffs has submitted that the impugned order rejecting the application filed below Exh.28 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by the applicant-defendant is appr
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is found to be manifestly vexatious and without merit, and does not disclose a....
A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and cancellation of sale deeds is barred by limitation if it is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 54 of the Limita....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it is barred by limitation or fails to disclose a cause of action, emphasizing the necessity for clear and truthful averments.
The court has the authority to reject suits under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC if they are manifestly vexatious and grossly delayed, even in the absence of a plea of limitation.
(1) Rejection of plaint – Defence taken by defendant in written statement cannot be taken into consideration and plaint has to be read as a whole and application cannot be decided in context of few a....
(1) Rejection of plaint – For the purpose of invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, averments made in plaint and accompanying documents have to be only exclusively examined and no evidence can be looked ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
