Court affirmed that a plaint cannot be rejected for non-disclosure of facts not directly related to the dispute, emphasizing the need for a trial to determine claims.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Pending suit, the defendant filed IA.No.3 of 2023 seeking to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On contest, the Trial Court has dismissed the Application as against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. I have heard Mrs.L.Lakshmi Swaroopa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy for Mr.R.Sethuvarayar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the plaintiff has come to Court with unclean hands and the suit was clearly barred for more than one reason. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even as early as on 13.04.2018, a lawyer's notice had been issued by the plaintiff's father referring to an agreement of sale dated 11.10.1993 and calling upon the defendant to come forward to execute the sale deed and a suit had also been filed by the revision petitioner against the said Shivam in O.S.No.96 of 2018 for the relief of a permanent injunction and the said suit came to be decreed on 06.10.2018.

4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel Mrs.Lakshmi Swaroopa that suppressing entire earlier litigation, the present suit has been instituted as if the starting point of the dispute was only the subject agreement of sale in the present suit. The contention of the learned counsel is therefore that when the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and circumstances from the Hon'ble Court, it amounted to gross abuse of process warranting rejection of the plaint. The learned counsel would also state that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and the plaintiff cannot plead an oral extension of time in order to bring the suit within the period of limitation.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her contentions has relied on the following decisions:

(i) A.E.Rathina Naicker vs V.Thirumalai , reported in (2017) SCC Online Mad 17048 ;

(ii) B.Suresh Chand vs State of Tamil Nadu , reported in 2006 (4)

CTC 805;

(iii) Nesammal and another vs Edward and another , reported in

1998 (II) CTC 537; and (iv) Mrs.Kalithai and another vs P.Karunanidhi and others , reported in CRP.PD.No.3007 of 2015 dated 25.04.2017.

6. Per contra, Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the agreement of sale is admitted and when the specific case of the plaintiff is that in the presence of witnesses, time was extended for execution of the sale deed, the issue cannot be summarily decided under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and he would therefore state that, rightly, the Trial Court has dismissed the Application seeking the rejection of the plaint.

7. Insofar as limitation, Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondent would state that in the facts of the present case even for deciding the issue of limitation, parties will have to lead evidence and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected as per the law.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri dismissing the Application for the rejection of the plaint. I have also gone through the decisions on which the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on.

9. Admittedly the respondent has filed t