Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manish Kumar Nigam, J.
Mohammad Usman and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Khursid Alias Bhoora – Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11299 of 2023
Decided On : 10-01-2024
Limitation - Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11, Limitation Act, 1963 - The court interpreted Order VII Rule 11 to determine the rejection of plaint based on limitation, emphasizing that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence for resolution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for the dismissal of a suit filed for cancellation of a sale-deed, claiming it was barred by limitation as the suit was filed beyond the three-year period stipulated by the Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, and the lower courts correctly decided that it should be determined after evidence was presented, rather than at the application stage.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by limitation and if the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. should have been granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is a drastic measure and should only occur when the plaint clearly discloses no cause of action or is barred by law, which requires a thorough examination of the plaint and relevant documents.
Result: The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Kumar Nigam, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
(ii) Issue an order or direction setting aside the order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Civil Revision No. 79 of 2021 titled Mohammad Usman and others v. Khurshid alias Bhoora passed by the Court of Additional District Judge Court No. 1, Saharanpur.
(iii) Issue an order or direction directing that the plaint of Original Suit No. 232 of 2019 title Khurshid alias Bhoora v. Mohammad Usman and others pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoband Saharanpur may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
(iv) Or, Issue an order or direction directing that the plea raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. may be decided as an issue without prejudice to the findings recorded in the impugned orders.”
3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoband, Saharanpur rejecting the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. in Original Suit No. 232 of 2019 (Khurshid @ Bhoora v. Mohd. Usman and others) and the revisional order passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 1, Saharanpur, dismissing the Civil Revision No. 79 of 2021 filed by defendant-petitioner (Mohd. Usman and others v. Khursid Alias Boora) vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2023.
4. Brief facts of the case are that Original Suit No. 232 of 2019 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for cancellation of sale-deed dated 22.1.2008 executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. The defendant-petitioners contested the suit by filing the written statement and taking a specific plea that the suit was barred by limitation. An application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the defendant-petitioners for rejection of plaint as being barred by limitation. The plaintiff-respondent filed their objection to the aforesaid application and the trial Court after hearing both the parties by its order dated 21.10.2021 has rejected the application filed by the defendant-petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground that the question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact and therefore, the same would be decided after the evidence of the parties. A revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the revisional Court by its order dated 6.10.2023, hence the present writ petition.
5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the perusal of the plaint averments as well as documents filed alongwith the plaint, it is apparent, that the suit was barred by limitation and the Courts below had erred in law in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of Article 59 of the Schedule appended with the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation for cancellation or setting aside an instrument is three years. The sale-deed executed by father of the plaintiff was of the year 2008 whereas, the present suit had been filed in the year 2019 much beyond the period of limitation. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of the Khatauni, which was filed alongwith the plaint by the plaintiff-respondent, it is clear that the plaintiff-respondent had knowledge of the sale-deed dated 22.1.2008 and the suit was barred by limitation.
6. It will be useful to examine the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. as well as Article 59 of the Schedule appended alongwit
The court established that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a full trial to resolve, rather than dismissal at the application stage.
The limitation for cancellation suits begins from the time the plaintiff becomes aware of the grounds for cancellation, not from the date of the instrument's execution.
Legal actions must be initiated within prescribed time limits, and stale claims that lack timely assertion cannot proceed; thus, suits filed beyond the limitation period are barred by law.
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without determining if it discloses a cause of action, especially when limitation is a mixed question of law and....
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 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....
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
