1. Suit for declaration of a Will and Codicil as null and void — Application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 630
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. – Appellants
VERSUS
Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5180 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13459 of 2024)
Decided On : 15-04-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Ms. Shivangi Chawla, Adv. Ms. Shrutika Garg, Adv. Mr. Pranay Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju, Adv. Mr. Dhanesh Patel, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, AOR Mr. Sankalp Kumar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Ms. Shivangi Chawla, Adv. Ms. Shrutika Garg, Adv. Mr. Pranay Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju, Adv. Mr. Dhanesh Patel, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, AOR Mr. Sankalp Kumar, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rejection of plaint – Bar of limitation – Limitation of three years has to be counted from the date when right to sue first accrues – Once plaint or suit in respect of main relief stands barred by time, other ancillary relief claimed therein also falls down.
(2) Period of limitation – Once a limitation prescribed for instituting a cause of action expires and even if limitation is not set up as a defence, it obliges court to dismiss suit as barred by limitation.
Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Bar of limitation – Suit seeking invalidation of Will as null and void as also for grant of permanent injunction – Relief of permanent injunction is simply a consequential relief, primary relief being for declaring Will and Codicil to be null and void – Relief of declaration claimed in suit at hand does not fall under Articles 56 and 57 and by necessary implication, Article 58 would stand attracted which provides for a limitation period of three years to obtain any other declaration other than that mentioned under Articles 56 and 57 – Limitation of three years has to be counted from the date when right to sue first accrues – On own averments of plaintiff, suit was instituted beyond limitation attracting Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC, for which neither any defence is required to be looked into nor any evidence in support is needed to be adduced – Once plaint or suit in respect of main relief stands barred by time, other ancillary relief claimed therein also falls down--Judgment and order of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored. (Paras 16, 19, 20, 24, 29 and 31)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3 – Period of limitation – Every suit instituted after period prescribed under the Act shall be dismissed even if limitation has not been set up as a defence – Provision is of a mandatory nature and cannot be ignored by courts even if not pleaded or argued by defence – It is obligatory upon court to dismiss suit if it is, on face of it, barred by limitation – The provision has been enacted for public good and to give quietus to a remedy after lapse of a particular period, as a matter of public policy, though without extinguishing the right in certain cases – Once a limitation prescribed for instituting a cause of action expires and even if limitation is not set up as a defence, it obliges court to dismiss suit as barred by limitation. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
Plaint of civil suit was rejected by court of first instance on an application of defendants filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. High Court has reversed order and has allowed appeal of the defendant restoring plaint for decision on merits.
Findings of Court:
High Court manifestly erred in law in passing impugned Judgment and order dated 08.02.2024, reversing judgment and order dated 23.10.2018 of court of first instance rejecting plaint of plaintiff in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation based on the plaint's averments or if limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. The suit was ex-facie barred by limitation as the right to sue first accrued upon registration of the Will, making evidence on limitation unnecessary. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 28 )
4. Under Article 58, Limitation Act, the three-year period runs from when the right to sue first accrues; Section 3 mandates dismissal of time-barred suits. (Para 19 , 20 , 25 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Trial court's order rejecting the plaint as barred by limitation restored. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
6. When does the limitation period begin for a suit for declaration under Article 58 of the Limitation Act?
For declarations other than those mentioned under Articles 56 and 57, the limitation period is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. (Para 19 , 20 )
7. Is a court obligated to dismiss a suit barred by limitation even if it is not raised as a defense?
Yes, Section 3 of the Limitation Act is mandatory. It is obligatory for the court to dismiss a suit instituted after the prescribed period, even if limitation has not been set up as a defense. (Para 25 )
8. Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the limitation is based on the plaintiff's own averments?
Yes, if the averments in the plaint clearly show the suit was instituted beyond the limitation period, it is ex-facie barred, and the plaint can be rejected without requiring further evidence. (Para 24 , 27 )
9. What is the effect on consequential reliefs if the primary relief in a suit is barred by limitation?
If the primary relief is barred by time, any ancillary or consequential reliefs that are dependent upon the success of the primary relief also fail. (Para 16 , 29 )
10. Is there a legal distinction between knowledge and full knowledge when calculating limitation under Article 58?
No, there is no distinction between knowledge and full knowledge. Limitation runs from the date when the cause of action first accrued, not from a subsequent date of complete knowledge. (Para 28 )
JUDGMENT
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Shri Bhadrish S. Raju, learned counsel for the respondent(s).
3. The plaint of the civil suit was rejected by the court of first instance on an application of the defendants filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure [In short ‘CPC’]. The High Court has reversed the aforesaid order and has allowed the appeal of the defendant restoring the plaint for decision on merits.
4. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 08.02.2024 setting aside the order dated 23.10.2018 of the Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, and directing to restore the Civil Suit No.1758/2017 for decision on merits in accordance with law, has been assailed in this appeal.
5. The plaintiff-Shri Hitesh P. Sanghvi instituted Suit No.1758/2017 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, against four persons including Smt. Harshaben Vijay Mehta, Smt. Nikhila Divyang Mehta, Smt. Ami Rajesh Parikh and Shri Nilav Divyang Mehta as defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively seeking direction from the court to declare the Will dated 04.02.2014 and the Codicil dated 20.09.2014 executed by his late father Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi and all consequential actions thereof to be null and void as also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into any transaction in furtherance of the aforesaid Will and Codicil.
6. The plaint categorically states that the plaintiff-Shri Hitesh P. Sanghvi is the son of deceased Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi who died at his residence on 21.10.2014. He was survived by his wife, his three daughters-defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 and a grandson-defendant No.4 (son of defendant No.2). The plaint further categorically, in unequivocal terms, states that the deceased took his last breath on 21.10.2014. Then in the first week of November, 2014, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 revealed to the plaintiff that the deceased had executed a Will and a Codicil as referred to above and he was taken by surprise.
7. The plaintiff further stated that the cause of action for the suit had arisen on three occasions, first on 04.02.2014 i.e., when the Will executed by his father was registered, again on 20.09.2014 i.e., when the Codicil was registered and then finally on 21.10.2014 when his father died.
8. The dispute per se in the suit is inter se the family members i.e., the son and daughters of the deceased Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi in connection with his Will and Codicil and for the purposes of seeking the reliefs claimed in the plaint i.e., for declaration of the Will and the Codicil to be null and void, the plaintiff contended that the cause of action for such a suit arose first on 04.02.2014, secondly on 20.09.2014 and lastly on 21.10.2014.
9. In the above background, defendant No.2 moved an application (Exh.25) purported to be under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the rejection of the plaint on the allegation that the plaintiff had not made any averment with regard to the suit to be within limitation and it is the primary duty of the plaintiff to show that the suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation. In the absence of such pleadings, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
10. A similar application was filed by defendant No.3 again under Order VII Rule 11 (Exh.28) for the rejection of the plaint contending that the suit has not been instituted within the prescribed period of limitation and the plaintiff has failed to aver, show and establish that the suit has been filed within time. The plaintiff had acquired knowledge of both the Will and the Codicil in the first week of November, 2014, but the suit was not instituted within three years from the first week of November, 2014, rather it was filed on 21.11.2017 and as such is ex-facie barred by limitation.
11. Another application (Exh. 33) to the same effect was filed by defendant No.4, contending that it is the primary duty
