Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
J. C. DOSHI, J
PRABHABEN MAVJIBHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
KAMLESHBHAI INDRAVADANBHAI DAVE – Respondent
What is the test to decide rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC when the suit is allegedly barred by law? What is the applicability of limitation periods (Articles 19, 21, 22, etc.) to disputes whether a transaction is a deposit or a loan, and can this be decided at the threshold? What constitutes a substantial question of law for a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, and are the questions framed by the appellant sufficient to constitute substantial questions of law?
Key Points: - (!) (!) Order 7 Rule 11(d) requires evaluating only whether the plaint is barred by law from the statement in the plaint. - (!) (!) Article 19, 21, 22 of the Limitation Act deal with time limits for money lent/deposited on demand; determination of deposit vs loan may affect limitation but is not to be decided at threshold. - (!) (!) The court discusses the concept and tests for what constitutes a substantial question of law for Section 100 CPC appeals. - (!) (!) The plaint contains allegations of deposit/hand loan; whether it is deposit or loan is a matter to be decided after trial. - (!) The Delhi/Ravi Sahni reference supports that deposit vs loan and applicable Article are to be decided after trial. - (!) (!) The appellate court’s approach to limitation and trial timing is analyzed with respect to Order 7 Rule 11. - (!) The court emphasizes that deciding whether a plaint is barred by law relies on statements in the plaint, not on defense materials. - (!) - (!) Jurisprudence on deposit vs loan and limitation implications as to when period begins. - (!) - (!) The second appeals are dismissed.
1.As facts and issue in dispute in all the Second Appeals are identical and similar one, upon joint request of learned advocates for the parties, the Second Appeals are decided analogously by this common order.
2.Considering involvement of issue of rejection of plaint in the Second Appeals, learned advocates for the parties jointly request to take up Second Appeals for final hearing by considering question of law framed by the appellant in appeals.
Second Appeal No.211 of 2024 is considered as lead matter.
3.All these Second Appeals are filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') challenging judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeals, upturning the order passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suits. In Regular Civil Suits, defendant of the suit filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. Those applications were allowed on the ground of suit is barred by law of limitation. Unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the same before Appellate Court by filing Regular Civil Appeals and succeeded in getting judgment and decree in their favour by which learned Appellate Court h
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
