Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta by which the High Court has allowed the said petition and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and consequently has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable as against the actual owner, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
Brief Facts:
The respondents herein – original plaintiffs had instituted a Title Suit against the respondents herein (original defendants) in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sealdah. Having served with the suit notice, the defendants submitted an application before the trial court requesting to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable. The trial court rejected the said application and refused to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The original defendants preferred revision application before the High Court. The High Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial court and consequently has allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and has rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable against the actual owner.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has erred in allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. It was submitted that while holding that the suit would be barred by limitation, the High Court has not at all considered the entire suit averments and has not considered the averments in the plaint as a whole. It was further submitted that the High Court has not at all properly appreciated the fact that the plaintiffs claimed the relief in the suit invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and also prayed for the relief of permanent injunction. It was urged that whether the plaintiffs would succeed in getting the relief/reliefs under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would have to be considered at the time of trial.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has not committed any error in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. It was contended that even according to the plaintiffs the cause of action had arisen in the year 2004 as averred in paragraph 4 of the plaint. It was submitted that therefore when the cause of action had arisen in the month of April / May, 2004 and when the suit was filed in the year 2010, the same is clearly barred by law of limitation. It was submitted that when once the suit was barred by limitation, the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation. At this stage what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. For the aforesaid purpose, the Court has to consider and read the averments in the plaint as a whole.
SC looked into the case of Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Ors., where the Court stated that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint is impermissible.
SC applied the law in present case and stated that it cannot be said at this stage that the suit is barred by limitation on the face of it. In the present case, while holding that the suit is barred by limitation, the High Court has considered only the averments made in paragraph 4 and has not considered the entire plaint averments.
SC noted that when the suit is for a decree of permanent injunction and it is averred that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property pursuant to the agreement and thereafter, they have developed the land and that they are in continuous possession since more than twelve years and they are also paying taxes to the Corporation, the cause of action can be said to have arisen on the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed. If that be so, the suit for decree for permanent injunction cannot be said to be barred by limitation. It is the settled proposition of law that the plaint cannot be rejected partially.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “Whether the plaintiffs shall be entitled to any relief under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or not has to be considered at the time of trial, but at this stage it cannot be said that the suit for the relief sought under Section 53A would not be maintainable at all and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint while exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal succeeds.”
Bench: M.R. Shah, J.
Case Title: Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr. v. Smt. Sulanga Bose & Ors.
Case Details: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1848 OF 2022
Picture Source :
