A court must reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code if the pleadings, read with relevant documents, disclose a time-barred claim or fail to establish a legitimate cause of action, as clever drafting cannot overcome the statutory requirements of the law of limitation.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED ON I.A NO.III IN OS.NO.1026/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1026/2013 is directed against the impugned order on I.A.No.3 and consequent judgment and decree dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, whereby the said application filed by the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the trial court, which rejected the plaint and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff.

2. Though the matter is posted for hearing on I.A.1/2025 for paper publication in respect of respondent No.2, since he has already entered appearance through his learned counsel, I.A.1/2025 is dismissed as not pressed as requested by the appellant. Further, with the consent of both sides, who have produced copies of the plaint along with documents, I.A.No.3 and objections to I.A.No.3, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the trial court.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents – defendants for declaration that the sale deed dated 15.11.1971 executed by the 4th defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and the gift deed dated 05.07.2006 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant were sham transactions and not binding upon the plaintiff and to effect partition of the suit schedule property and to put the plaintiff in separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. The defendants 5 to 12 were said to be the family members of the plaintiff.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance through their counsel and in addition to filing their written statement, also filed the instant application I.A.No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by limitation. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

7. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court fell in error in failing to appreciate that the plaintiff was not aware of the sale deed dated 15.11.1971 or gift deed dated 05.07.2006 and immediately upon coming to know about the same, the plaintiff instituted the instant suit, which was well within limitation and the trial court committed an error in failing to consider and appreciate the plaint averments in this regard, while passing the impugned order. It was also submitted that in addition to the prayer for declaration that the sale deed and gift deed were not binding upon the plaintiff, he had also sought for partition and separate possession of his legitimat