Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GAURI GODSE J.
Ganesh Lakhaji Chudasama - Applicant
Versus
Ganesh Builders & Ors. - Respondent
Interim Application No. 6435 of 2025 In Commercial Suit No. 117 of 2021
Decided On : 20-04-2026
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Sohaib Memon a/w. Ibrahim Memon
For the Respondent : Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Vikramjit Singh Garewal a/w. Dhawani Bokaria a/w. Priyank Chudasama i/b. M/s. Purnanand

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mayur Khandeparkar, Vikramjit Singh Garewal, Dhawani Bokaria, Priyank Chudasama
For the Respondents: Sohaib Memon, Ibrahim Memon

Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at threshold for limitation if pleadings disclose triable issues on mixed questions of law and fact regarding cause of action accrual and continuous breach.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) - Rejection of plaint - Suit for declaration of possession and entitlement to develop suit property under subsisting development agreement, recovery of advance paid, damages for breach and injunction - Application by defendant for rejection on grounds of no cause of action and bar of limitation under Articles 47, 55, 58 of Limitation Act - Exhaustive pleadings disclosing triable issues on continuous cause of action, knowledge of prior collusive decree, and subsisting agreement - Limitation involving mixed question of law and fact not determinable at threshold without trial - Plaint disclosing distinct causes of action for reliefs claimed cannot be rejected in entirety - Clever drafting allegations require evidence - Application dismissed. (Paras 33, 39-45)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 47, 55, 58 - Suits for recovery of money on failed consideration, compensation for breach of contract, declaration - Starting point when right to sue accrues or breach occurs - Continuous breach not extending limitation once it commences - Claim through prior party bound by decree unless challenged - However, where agreement subsisting and interference alleged via collusive proceedings, precise accrual date requires factual adjudication. (Paras 4-9, 28-32)

(C) Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Object to disclose cause of action for fair trial - Fictional or illusory cause to evade limitation impermissible - But prima facie triable issues on title chain, possession, breach preclude rejection. (Paras 42-43)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff developer claims rights under development agreement assigning balance development potential on suit property, paid substantial advance, commenced construction stopped by disputes and prior collusive suit between defendants declaring termination of earlier agreement and protecting possession excluding constructed portion. Prior suit decreed in 2010 restraining defendants from interference; plaintiff claims unaware initially, assured of challenge, agreement unterminated providing continuous cause of action. Defendant seeks plaint rejection as time-barred from 1997 agreement breaches, 2004 termination notice, 2010 decree knowledge.

Findings of Court:
Triable issues exist on limitation, cause of action; plaint not rejected; parties proceed to trial.

Issues: Whether suit barred by limitation on plain reading of plaint; existence of real cause of action or clever drafting to evade bar; applicability of prior decree to plaintiff claiming through defendant; continuous cause of action from subsisting agreement and collusive inter-defendant suit.

Ratio Decidendi: Plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 permissible only if ex facie barred by law or discloses no cause of action without evidence; where pleadings raise factual disputes on limitation accrual, multiple reliefs from distinct causes, and require trial on mixed law-fact issues, rejection at threshold unwarranted even if some claims potentially time-barred. Result : Interim application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application seeks plaint rejection under order vii rule 11 cpc. (Para 1 , 2)
2. suit barred by limitation under articles 47, 55, 58. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. collusive suits create continuous cause of action. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. property title traced through agreements and prior litigation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. cited cases distinguish preliminary limitation rejection. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
6. triable limitation issues require trial; application dismissed. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)

JUDGMENT:

GAURI GODSE J.

1. This application is filed by defendant no. 7 praying for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on the ground that the suit is barred by law, and there is no cause of action.

2. The suit is filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are in possession and entitled to develop the suit property under the Development Agreement dated 28^th October 1997. The plaintiffs also prayed to direct defendant nos. 1 to 6 to pay to the plaintiffs an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- received by them under the said agreement with interest, damages for loss of earnings in the amount of Rs. 75,60,00,000/-, with interest thereon from 29^th April 2004, aggregating to Rs. 3,08,07,00,000/-, as per the particulars of claim annexed to the plaint and direction to defendant nos. 1 to 6 to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- with further interest thereon @ 18% per annum from filing of the suit till recovery being the amount spent by the plaintiffs for construction of the building described in the plaint. The plaintiffs have also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from entering into any development agreement, creating any third- party interests in respect of the suit property, or carrying out any construction activity on the suit property.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 7:

3. The suit is barred by the law of limitation, and there is no cause of action. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that when, on the plain reading, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaint must be rejected at the threshold. To support these submissions, he relied upon the decisions in Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, (2020) 6 SCC 601., and Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udyan Raje P M Bhonsle and Anr, (2024) 15 SCC 675.

4. Admittedly, in the year 2010 itself, the plaintiffs had knowledge about the judgment dated 21^st April 2010 in Suit No. 2257 of 2004 restraining defendant no.1 herein from dispossessing defendant no. 7 from the suit property. Therefore, the suit ought to have been filed before 2014. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are claiming through defendant no.1 and therefore, the said judgment and decree is binding on the plaintiffs. Therefore, the cause of action arose way back in 2010. The plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for such a declaration within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrued, as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Considering the plaintiffs' money claim, it is clearly barred by the law of limitation. As the cause of action for return of money and damages is for breach of the development agreement dated 28^th October 1997, the plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for return of consideration under said Agreement within 3 years from the date of the failure, as per Article 47 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the suit is barred by the law of limitation. To support these submissions, learnedcounsel for defendant no. 7 relied upon the decision of this court in Rewas Ports Ltd v. Rohan Developers Pvt. Limited, 2016 SCC Online Bom 3900.

5. The plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the plaintiff paid to defendant nos.1 to 6 a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as on 28^th October 1997. Therefore, the cause of action in respect of the prayer for return of money aro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 986

Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at threshold for limitation if pleadings disclose triable issues on mixed questions of law and fact regarding cause of action accrual and continuous breach.

Cases Referred (9)