IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that a plaint can only be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action, and issues of limitation are triable matters.

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2024 in I.A. No. 495 of 2021 in O.S. No. 238 of 2019 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

3. The Petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit filed for specific performance.

4. While so, the petitioners herein filed the underlying interlocutory application seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’).

5. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, held that since a reading of the plaint discloses cause of action, other disputed questions like the suit being within limitation being a mixed questions of fact, the same would have to be decided during trial. Holding so, the court below dismissed the interlocutory application.

6. The present revision is preferred aggrieved by the same.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not included in the pleadings portion of the plaint and thus, the said cause of action is illusory. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the plaint was barred by limitation; and that Court below ought to have rejected the plaint on noticing that the agreement of sale was executed in 09.11.2006 whereas, the suit was filed in 2019.

8. I have taken note of the contentions urged.

9. At the outset, it is trite law that the scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. The High Court while entertaining its supervisory jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the Trial Court. Interference is to be exercised only when the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, or manifest procedural irregularity or the Court passing such order lacks jurisdiction. It is equally well settled that interference in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be shown merely because another view is possible. [See: Trimbak Gangadhar Telang and Others vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 437 and Shalini Shyam Shetty and Others vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329]

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 100, Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2020) 16 SCC 601 held that so long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination, the Court cannot reject it on the threshold merely because it is of the opinion that the plaintiff may not succeed in his case.

11. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kasani Narasimhulu vs. Sathagowni Srinivas Goud and Others, MANU/AP/3405/2013 held that since the rejection a plaint denies the entry of a citizen into the Civil Court, the power under Order 7 Rule 11 has to be exercised carefully and cautiously. The Court while observing that, there is a clear distinction between a case where the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and where a conclusion can be arrived at that there is no cause of action, held that a plaint can only be rejected when it does not disclose cause of action.

12. In order to consider the issue of limitation it is beneficial to note the relevant law application. As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act, 1963’), the limitation to institute a suit for specific performance is three years from the date fixed for performance or if no date is fixed, from the date the plaintiff notices that performance was refused. Right to sue in other words is nothing but cause of action to file a suit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163 observed that the cause of action for a suit ‘has no relation whatsoever’ to either the defence set up by the defendant or the character of relief prayed for by the plaintiff.

13. In the case of Da