A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by limitation, preventing vexatious litigation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11, Order XXIII Rule 4 - Civil suit for partition and separate possession rejected as barred by limitation and due to previous suit abandonment; earlier claims were dismissed for non-prosecution, thus presenting no cause of action for fresh suit - The plaintiff failed to challenge registered sale deeds executed prior to the amendment providing equal rights to daughters, and no relief sought undermining prior sale actions. (Paras 3, 19, 24)

(B) The court emphasized that if a plaint does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by limitation, it should be rejected to prevent vexatious litigation. The learned Civil Judge correctly sought to ensure that the procedural integrity of the judicial process is maintained and any instance of clever drafting creating an illusion of a cause of action is curbed. (Paras 20-22)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed the suit for partition against her father and siblings claiming rights over property previously sold. Defendants argued the suit was barred since the sale deed was executed in 2001, and the plaintiff withdrew an earlier suit without permission to refile.

Findings of Court:
The court found plaintiff's claims invalid as no cause of action was established, and the matter was barred by limitation.

Issues: The main issues were about whether the new suit was maintainable after previous dismissal and if the limitation period had expired.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that rights had been extinguished through earlier valid transactions and the principles of res judicata and limitation applied, justifying the rejection of the plaint.

Result: Civil revision petition allowed; plaint rejected.

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.6 in O.S.No.73/2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devanahalli, being aggrieved of the rejection of the applications in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S.No.73/2019 is filed by Smt.H.K.Susheelamma, against her father, sister, brothers and defendants No.5 and 6 who have allegedly purchased the suit schedule property, with a prayer seeking partition and separate possession of 1/5^th share in the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. After entering appearance, the two brothers of the plaintiff i.e., defendants No.3 and 4 filed counterclaim and sought for their share in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred under Order XXIII Rule 4 of CPC, since the plaintiff who had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.23/1998 seeking a declaration that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the suit schedule property and had also sought for permanent injunction against defendant No.5 herein, had abandoned her claim by withdrawing the Misc. Petition No.39/2003 as settled out of Court. It was also contended that the suit is barred by the law of limitation, since admittedly the sale deed was executed by defendants No.1 and 2, through their Power of Attorney holder in the year 2001 and though the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the same, she has filed the suit in the year 2019, beyond the period of limitation. It was also contended that when admittedly the suit schedule property was purchased by the first defendant under registered sale deed dated 02.04.1981, the property was the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and further since the property was sold in the year 2001, prior to the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act , the plaintiff being the daughter of defendant No.1 could not seek to challenge the sale transaction or seek a share in the property. It was therefore contended that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit in the year 2019. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the prayer in the earlier suit was different from the one in the present suit and therefore, Order XXIII will not be attracted. It was also held that unless the parties are permitted to lead evidence, the truth of the matter as to whether defendants No.1 and 2 had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Sri N.Ramesh and whether the plaintiff along with her family members had subsequently received further sale consideration and executed an affidavit in that regard, cannot be decided.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sreenivasan Raghavan V, appearing for defendant No.6 submitted that earlier when the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.23/1998, she had sought for a declaration that the suit schedule property was a joint family property and that the plaintiff had 1/5^th share in the suit schedule property. However, during the course of the suit, when defendant No.1 (father of the plaintiff) along with defendant No.2 (younger sister of the plaintiff) entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.5, which was then known as M/s.Maya’s Wonder World Pvt. Ltd., defendant No.5 was impleaded in the suit. On 10.08.2001 defendants No.1 and 2, through their Power of Attorney holder sold the property in favour of defendant No.5 under five separate sale deeds. The suit in O.S.No.23/1998 was dismissed for non-prosecution. After the sale transaction dated 10.08.2001, the plaintiff filed a Miscellaneous Petition in Misc. No.39/2003 seeking to recall the order of dismissal of the suit. At the same time, defendants No.3 and 4 herein als

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18835

A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by limitation, preventing vexatious litigation.

Cases Referred (3)