MIKKILINENI YUJAYA DINESH BABU vs PASALA SATYAVATHI

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Suit for declaration of title and injunction - Rejection of plaint - Principle that only plaint averments and documents annexed thereto are to be considered - Defense not relevant - Dispute as to date of first accrual of cause of action becomes mixed question of law and fact - Plaint cannot be rejected at threshold if not ex facie barred - Denial of exclusive ownership does not amount to clear denial of title. (Paras 19, 20, 23, 31, 33, 34)

(B) Order VII Rule 11(d) - Application when suit appears from statement in plaint to be barred by any law - If defendant disputes the date of cause of action, it requires evidence and cannot be decided summarily. (Paras 29, 31, 32, 34)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in 2021. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. They contended that cause of action first accrued in 2005 when they denied the plaintiff's title in a written statement filed in an earlier suit (O.S.No.1492 of 2005). The plaintiff claimed that cause of action arose on 15.08.2021 when the defendants attempted to trespass. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint averments showed the suit was within limitation. The defendants filed a civil revision petition under Article 227.

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's order. It held that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments and documents filed with the plaint are to be considered. The defense or written statement cannot be looked into. The plaint must ex facie show that the suit is barred by limitation. Here, the plaint clearly stated the cause of action on 15.08.2021 and the suit was filed within three years. The defendants' contention that the cause of action first accrued in 2005 raised a disputed question of fact which required evidence, making it a mixed question of law and fact. Therefore, the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold. The court also noted that the judgment of the earlier suit did not show a clear denial of title but only a denial of exclusive ownership.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit was ex facie barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act? 2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?

Ratio Decidendi: For rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the suit must appear from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. If the plaintiff pleads a specific date of cause of action and the suit is within three years from that date, but the defendant alleges an earlier date, it raises a disputed question of fact. Such a question cannot be decided summarily without evidence. The plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the limitation issue involves a mixed question of law and fact. Additionally, a denial of exclusive ownership does not constitute a clear denial of title that would trigger the limitation period for a declaration suit.

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. (Paras 51, 52)

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Civil revision against rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject plaint as barred by limitation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )

2. Whether suit for declaration is barred by limitation when plaint states later cause of action but defendants claim earlier first accrual. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 )

3. Revision dismissed; order rejecting plaint rejection application upheld. (Para 51 )

4. What is the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC regarding documents to be considered for rejection of plaint?

Only plaint averments and documents filed with the plaint are considered; written statement and defense documents are not relevant at this stage. (Para 19 , 20 , 29 , 31 , 32 )

5. When does limitation start for a suit for declaration under Article 58 of the Limitation Act?

Limitation is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues; successive violations do not give a fresh cause of action. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 )

6. Can a plaint be rejected on limitation ground under Order VII Rule 11(d) when there is a dispute on the date of first accrual of cause of action?

No, because the question becomes a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence; rejection only if ex-facie barred from plaint. (Para 29 , 31 , 35 , 46 )

7. What constitutes a clear denial of title that triggers the cause of action for a declaratory suit?

A mere plea of 'no exclusive right' does not amount to a clear and complete denial of title. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 )

8. Does the limitation for a suit for declaration with further relief depend on the additional relief claimed?

Yes, for a suit for declaration with further relief, limitation may be governed by the article applicable to the further relief, not necessarily Article 58. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 )

ORDER:

Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri MannamVenkata Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/defendants being aggrieved from the order dated 10.12.2025 of rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) in I.A.No.474 of 2025 in O.S.No.230 of 2021 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

3. The plaintiff (respondent herein) initially filed O.S.No.1492 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants (the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & the predecessor in the interest of the petitioner Nos.3 to 5 herein) from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit schedule property.In the suit, the petitioners filed written statement raising various pleas. The suit was dismissed on 04.07.2016. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.155 of 2016which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 18.02.2016 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

4. The plaintiff thereafter filed another O.S.No.230 of 2021 in the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit is pending.

5. In O.S.No.230 of 2021, the defendants/petitioners filed I.A.No.474 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Inter-alia, it was stated that in the previous suit O.S.No.1492 of 2005, the defendants had filed written statement and denied the title of the plaintiff. The defendants case in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was that since the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff in the written statement filed in O.S.No.1492 of 2005, as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the suit O.S.No.230 of 2021 for declaration was barred by limitation and was liable to be rejected. The O.S.No.230 of 2021 was required to be filed within a period of limitation of 3 years from the date cause of action first accrued i.e., when the written statement was filed in O.S.No.1492 of 2005 in 2005 itself. Reliance was placed in Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

6. The plaintiff-respondent filed objection/counter,inter-alia taking the stand that the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation was premature, legally untenable and misconceived. The suit was not barred by limitation. The plaintiff-respondent further pleaded that after the decree in O.S.No.1492 of 2005, the plaintiff had filed A.S.No.155 of 2016 and during its pendency the defendants/petitioners with malafide intent, began spreading false propaganda in and around the vicinity of the suit schedule property, falsely claiming ownership thereof and on 15.08.2021 taking the advantage of their men, they made an unsuccessful attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property. Their right to sue for declaration was said to have accrued on 15.08.2021.The defendants misconstituted the cause of action from the written statement filed in earlier suit, O.S.No.1492 of 2005.

7. Learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether any ground exists under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as prayed by the petitioner/defendant or not?”

8. The learned Trial Court held that the plaint averments specifically stated that the cause of action arose on 15.08.2021. The plaintiff pleaded that plaintiff was an owner and in peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property and on 15.08.2021 the defendants attempted to interfere and set up false ownership and tried to trespass. Learned Trial Court held that the Court was bound to confine strictly to the plaint averments and the written statement or defense documents, earlier written statement, judgment in O.S.No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1154

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI
MIKKILINENI YUJAYA DINESH BABU – Appellant
Versus
PASALA SATYAVATHI – Respondent
CRP 331/2026

At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments are considered. If the plaint shows a cause of action within limitation but the defendant disputes the date of first accrual, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided summarily; plaint cannot be rejected.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC regarding documents to be considered for rejection of plaint?

5. When does limitation start for a suit for declaration under Article 58 of the Limitation Act?

6. Can a plaint be rejected on limitation ground under Order VII Rule 11(d) when there is a dispute on the date of first accrual of cause of action?

7. What constitutes a clear denial of title that triggers the cause of action for a declaratory suit?

8. Does the limitation for a suit for declaration with further relief depend on the additional relief claimed?

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1154

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHRAVI NATH TILHARIMIKKILINENI YUJAYA DINESH BABU – AppellantVersusPASALA SATYAVATHI – RespondentCRP 331/2026

At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments are considered. If the plaint shows a cause of action within limitation but the defendant disputes the date of first accrual, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided summarily; plaint cannot be rejected.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC regarding documents to be considered for rejection of plaint?

5. When does limitation start for a suit for declaration under Article 58 of the Limitation Act?

6. Can a plaint be rejected on limitation ground under Order VII Rule 11(d) when there is a dispute on the date of first accrual of cause of action?

7. What constitutes a clear denial of title that triggers the cause of action for a declaratory suit?

8. Does the limitation for a suit for declaration with further relief depend on the additional relief claimed?

Cases Referred (5)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI
MIKKILINENI YUJAYA DINESH BABU – Appellant
Versus
PASALA SATYAVATHI – Respondent
CRP 331/2026