Order VII Rule 11 | Rejection of Plaint not a Tool to Delay Trial: HC dismisses Plea with Costs

In a significant ruling on limitation and rejection of plaints in commercial disputes, the Bombay High Court refused to throw out a long-pending property suit at the threshold, rejecting the defendant’s plea that the claim was time-barred and devoid of cause of action. The order underscores a crucial principle, where contractual obligations remain unfulfilled over time, Courts may treat the breach as ongoing, keeping claims alive and triable rather than shutting them out prematurely.

The controversy began when the defendant sought outright rejection of a suit filed for specific performance and related reliefs, arguing that the agreement dated 2008 had long expired and the suit filed years later was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was also contended that the plaintiff, claiming through a trust structure, lacked the legal standing to maintain the action and had improperly combined multiple causes without requisite permission.

Counsel for the plaintiff countered that the dispute did not end in 2008, pointing to repeated assurances, notices, and partial compliance over the years, including eventual handover of possession and ongoing disputes over parking spaces and amenities. The plaintiff maintained that the breach was continuous, giving rise to a recurring cause of action.

The Court declined to accept the defendant’s technical objections, holding that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action backed by documentary material, including trust and partition arrangements. On limitation, the Court delivered a decisive blow to the defendant’s argument, ruling that non-compliance with contractual obligations could amount to a continuing wrong. It observed that “for computing the period of limitation, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach continues.”

The Court further cautioned against the premature use of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, noting that such power is “a drastic one” and must be applied strictly. Finding that the suit raised “triable issues,” the Court rejected the application and imposed costs, concluding that the move appeared intended to delay proceedings.

Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000 imposed on the defendant.

Case Title: Dnm Trustee Service Private Ltd Vs Victoria Enterprises Limited and Ors.

Case No.: Interim Application No. 7964 of 2025

Coram: Hob’ble Mr. Justice Gauri Godse

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Chirag Mody,  Adv. Parag Kabadi, Adv. Drishti Gudhaka

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Manish N. Jain, Adv. Ritu G. Gehlot, Adv. S.M. Jain

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com