The main legal point established is that for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the aspect of limitation has to be reflected from the plaint, and the court will consider the bare reading of the plaint to determine if the suit is barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.04.2021 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Deedwana, whereby, the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

3. The suit was filed by the respondents plaintiffs seeking specific performance of contracts dated 19.07.1972 & 09.02.2003 and for permanent injunction. The averments were made in the plaint pertaining to arising of the cause of action wherein it was claimed that the cause of action arose on 10.10.2017 and the present suit was filed on 14.07.2020.

4. Petitioner filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia on the ground that both the agreements relied on were fraudulent and concocted, they were unregistered and the suit was barred by limitation and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

5. The application was contested by the plaintiffs.

6. The trial court after hearing the parties, by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that for disposal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the plaint is required to be looked into and on the perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by limitation and consequently, rejected the application.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the averments made in the plaint, attempted to indicate that the cause of action had arisen to the plaintiffs long before filing of the suit and as such, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record including the plaint.

9. Though, as the suit for specific performance has been filed seeking performance of agreements dated 19.07.1972 & 09.02.2003, the claim of the petitioners regarding the suit being barred by limitation, on first blush may appear to be justified, however, the said aspect has to be reflected from the plaint for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial court was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that from bare reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. In those circumstances, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

10. No case for interference in the order impugned is made out.

11. However, looking to the nature of the case, once the issues are framed and if an appropriate application is filed seeking decision on the aspect of limitation as the preliminary issue, it is expected of the trial court to deal with the same appropriately. With the above observations, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.