Back
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Ms. Tashi Doma Dorjee – Appellant
Versus
Pathing Gumpa Managing Committee – Respondent
ORDER (ORAL)
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The matter is taken up before issuance of notice. Heard Mr. T. B. Thapa, learned Senior Counsel for the defendant nos. 1 and 2 (the revisionists). The revisionists are aggrieved by rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC).
2. The suit was instituted by Pathing Gumpa Managing Committee as the plaintiff (respondent no.1) against the revisionists as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the District Registrar as defendant nos. 3 and 4 (the respondent nos. 2 and 3). The application for rejection of the plaint was on two primary grounds. The first ground was that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the second ground was that it is barred by law of limitation.
3. During the course of the extensive arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists it is submitted that clever drafting has given the plaint an illusion of a cause of action. However, on close scrutiny it is a vexatious and mischievous suit without any cause of action.
4. Taking this Court to the pleadings as well as the prayers in the plaint the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prayer (i)
A plaint should not be rejected unless it manifestly discloses no cause of action or is vexatious; here, the court found it did disclose a cause of action based on registered title.
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....
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 court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
Point of law: Rejection of plaint - Clever or ingenious drafting cannot mask the Court for consideration of am application seeking rejection of the plaint when the suit is barred by limitation on the....
The court affirms that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without a detailed evidential examination.
A plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 when limitation depends on disputed facts, requiring a full trial to establish cause of action.
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
