[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shri. Ramesh S/O Bhagirath Rander vs Shri. Anil Hariprasad Jejani And Others on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2408
1002CRA117-25.odt 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 117 OF 2025
Ramesh Bhagirath Rander, Aged 60 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Sarvodaya Cloth Market, Gandhibagh, Nagpur,
Tahsil & District - Nagpur (Maharashtra State). APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Anil Hariprasad Jejani, Aged 69 years, Occ: Business,
R/o 'Kheta Bhavan', New Cotton Market Road, Nagpur -
440018, Tahsil & District - Nagpur (Maharashtra State).
2. Anil Trimbakrao Kheta (HUF), Through its Karta Anil
Trimbakrao Kheta, Aged 64 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Shri Balaji, Block No.11, Prashant Nagar, Ajni Chowk,
Nagpur, Tahsil & District - Nagpur (Maharashtra State)
Consisting of his wife Pushpa and two sons Anshul
and Aniket (all major).
3. Anil Trimbakrao Kheta, Aged 64 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Shri Balaji, Block No.11, Prashant Nagar, Ajni Chowk,
Nagpur Tahsil & District Nagpur (Maharashtra State).
4. Pooja Anil Kale, Aged 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o Congress
Nagar, Nagpur, Tahsil & District Nagpur (Maharashtra
State) legal heir of late Aruna Govind Mishra.
5. Sushila Suresh Chawada, Aged 76 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Congress Nagar, Nagpur, Tahsil & District Nagpur
(Maharashtra State).
6. Prakash Maganbhai Kheta, Aged 74 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Tikekar Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur, Tahsil & District
Nagpur (Maharashtra State).
7. Anita Pramod Shinde, Aged 68 years, Occ: Legal
Practitioner, R/o Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur, Tahsil &
District Nagpur (Maharashtra State).
8. Sanjay Vasantjibhai Kheta, Aged 65 years, Occ: Business,
R/o 163, Adarsh Nagar, Narmada Road, Jabalpur,
(Madhya Pradesh). NON-APPLICANTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri H.D. Dangre, counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the non-applicant no.1.
Shri S.B. Mohta, counsel for the non-applicant nos.2 to 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : DECEMBER 05, 2025
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCWED : FEBRUARY 10, 2026
1002CRA117-25.odt 2 Judgment
JUDGMENT
ADMIT. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
2. This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') takes exception to order
dated 20.12.2024 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for
rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of
the Code, at Exhibit 10, in Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2023.
3. The applicant is the original defendant no.8 in the suit filed by the
non-applicant no.1 and the non-applicant nos.2 to 8 herein are the
original defendant nos.1 to 7 in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for
declaration that the sale-deed dated 24.10.2020 to the extent of the suit
property is not binding on the plaintiff it being executed by playing fraud
on the plaintiff as well as for seeking relief of specific performance of the
agreements dated 06.10.1995 and 21.11.1995 and for permanent
injunction.
FACTS OF THE CASE
4. The case as pleaded by the original plaintiff in the suit is briefly
stated as under:-
(i) The suit pertains to the properties described in paragraph 2 of the
plaint which is land admeasuring about 15000 square feet shown in the
plaint map identified as Survey No.407/2 and 408/2 (New City Survey
No.102, Sheet No.261), Mouza Nagpur alongwith superstructure standing
1002CRA117-25.odt 3 Judgment
on the plot. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant no.1 is a 'HUF'
shown as Anil Kheta HUF of which the defendant no.2 Anil Kheta is the
Manager-Karta consisting himself, his wife Pushpa and two sons Anshul
and Aniket.
(ii) The defendant no.8 is shown to be the purchaser of the property
admeasuring about 42000 square feet out of entire property admeasuring
87000 square feet, as described in the sale-deed dated 24.10.2020
executed on behalf of Anil Kheta i.e. the defendant no.1 and others by the
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur in the execution
proceedings bearing Darkhast No.63 of 2020 by order dated 09.10.2020.
(iii) It has to be noted that a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.291 of
2017 was filed by the applicant herein (Ramesh Rander) against the non-
applicant nos.2 to 8 herein seeking specific performance of agreement
dated 01.08.2011 about land admeasuring 42000 square feet. The said
suit was compromised in Lok-Adalat on 08.02.2020. For execution of this
compromise decree, the applicant herein filed Special Darkhast no.63 of
2020. In this execution case, the non-applicant no.1 herein filed an
objection under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 read with Sections 47 and 151
of the Code. This objection (Exhibit 31) was initially rejected by order
dated 11.04.2023, which was challenged vide First Appeal No.304 of
2023, before this Court. This First Appeal was allowed by order dated
23.10.2024 and the objection filed by the non-applicant no.1 herein is
revived. As such, the said objection under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 of
the Code is pending as on today.
1002CRA117-25.odt 4 Judgment
(iv) It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant no.8 claims to be the
owner of the suit property on the basis of a decree passed on account of
collusion and connivance between the defendant nos.1, 2 and 8 and by
playing fraud on the plaintiff to deprive him of the valuable rights in the
suit property.
(v) On the basis of elaborate pleadings as stated in the plaint, the
plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration that the sale-deed dated
24.10.2020 executed in favour of the defendant no.8 is void to the extent
of the suit property and hence not binding on the plaintiff and further a
declaration is sought that the agreements dated 06.10.1995 and
21.11.1995 still subsist and their cancellation by the defendant nos.1 and
2 is illegal and void. On the basis of such declaration, a decree for specific
performance of contract of agreements dated 06.10.1995 and 21.11.1995
is prayed for.
5. The defendant no.8 appeared in the suit and filed an application for
rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of
the Code at Exhibit 10. By this application, the defendant no.8 prayed for
rejection of the plaint being barred by limitation and being devoid of any
cause of action. The application was resisted by the plaintiff by his reply
dated 27.09.2023 and by order dated 20.12.2024, the trial Court rejected
the application. By way of instant civil revision application, the defendant
no.8 has raised a challenge to this order.
1002CRA117-25.odt 5 Judgment
CONTENTIONS CANVASSED
6. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant
primarily submitted that the plaint deserves to be rejected on two counts,
firstly being barred by limitation and secondly for failure to disclose any
cause of action.
7. He also submitted that the plaintiffs have already filed an objection
under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 read with Section 47 of the Code in the
execution proceedings bearing Special Darkhast No.63 of 2020 and hence
the suit seeking relief of cancellation of sale-deed and specific
performance of contract is an attempt to contest two parallel proceedings
which is an abuse of process of law.
8. As regards the contention about the suit being barred by limitation,
the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the primary relief prayed in
the suit is Prayer Clause (b) seeking relief of specific performance of
contract and the relief prayed vide Prayer Clause (a) about declaration for
cancellation of sale-deed dated 24.10.2020 is a secondary relief. He
therefore submitted that the primary relief of specific performance of
contract with respect to the agreements dated 06.10.1995 and 21.11.1995
being hopelessly barred by limitation, the plaint was required to be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
He submitted that a suit for specific performance of contract is
governed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides
limitation period of three years and the time from which period begins to
run is the date fixed for the performance and in case, no such date is fixed,
1002CRA117-25.odt 6 Judgment
the period begins to run when the plaintiff has notice that performance is
refused. He submitted that the first limb of the said clause is only relevant
in the instant case as a date was fixed for the performance of contract. He
submitted that the second limb of said clause dealing with cases where no
such date is fixed is not at all attracted in the instant case. He submitted that
the suit is filed in the instant case after about 28 years from the date of
agreements of sale and therefore, it is barred by limitation. By relying on
Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly 'Explanation (ii)' to
Section 16, he submitted that this Section creates a statutory bar for the
suits of specific performance of contract and the bar being statutory in
nature is governed by Clause (d) to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
By inviting attention to various clauses of the agreement of sale
dated 06.10.1995 and supplementary agreement dated 21.11.1995,
particularly Clause 3 of the agreement, he submitted that a specific time
period was fixed for performance of the agreement i.e. within six months
from the date of this agreement or within one month from the date of
completing formalities which are required to be completed for execution
of the sale-deed. He submitted that Clause 3 when read with Clause 11 of
the said agreement clearly provided that the outer limit for performance
of the agreement was six months. He submitted that the supplementary
agreement was executed only for the purpose of inserting the stipulations
about payment of Rs.3,50,000/- which was duly acknowledged by the
Party no.1 to the said agreement. He thus submitted that even after
execution of the supplementary agreement, the stipulations about time
1002CRA117-25.odt 7 Judgment
period for performance of contract were maintained and remained
binding on the parties. As such, the suit claiming specific performance of
contract filed after a period of twenty eight years, based on the agreement
dated 06.10.1995 and supplementary agreement dated 21.11.1995, is
clearly barred by limitation and the plaint deserved to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
9. Another limb of argument on behalf of the applicant as canvassed
by the learned Senior Advocate is about absence of cause of action. He
submitted that the pleadings in the plaint do not disclose cause of action
for seeking the relief of specific performance of contract and the cause of
action as pleaded in the plaint is illusory in nature. He submitted that
there is no real cause of action to claim the relief of specific performance
of contract. By inviting attention to various paragraphs in the plaint, he
submitted that the pleadings in the suit are not in consonance with the
terms of the agreements and the pleadings are at variance with the
stipulations and the terms of the agreements. He submitted that although
the plaintiff has claimed the relief of specific performance of contract, he
has failed to specifically aver in the plaint about any cause of action and as
such in view of Explanation (ii) to Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, the plaint, which does not reveal any cause of action, deserved to be
rejected. By inviting attention to paragraph 23 of the plaint, in which the
plaintiff has elaborated the cause of action, he submitted that the alleged
cause of action is not relatable to any agreement and the cause of action
as pleaded is illusory in nature.
1002CRA117-25.odt 8 Judgment
10. He submitted that despite the suit being clearly barred by limitation
and lacking any cause of action, the trial Court failed to consider the
application for rejection of plaint in proper perspective and committed
error in rejecting the said application.
In support of his submission, the learned Senior Advocate for
applicant placed reliance on the following case laws:-
i. K. Nagesh Shet Versus Dr.Antonio Teotonio Cardoso & Another
[2023(3) Mh.L.J. 526].
ii. Dr.Miss Kunda d/o Khemraj Choudhary Versus Mathurabai
Mahadu Jadhav (deceased) & Others [2016(3) Mh.L.J. 602].
iii. Urvashi Aggarwal (since deceased) through legal representatives &
Another Versus Kushagr Ansal (successor-in-interest of erstwhile
defendant 1 Suraj Kumar) & Others [(2020) 17 SCC 774].
iv. Fatehji & Company & Another Versus L.M. Nagpal & Others
[(2015) 8 SCC 390].
v. K.Raheja Constructions Ltd. & Another Versus Alliance Minstries &
Others [1995 Supp(3) SCC 17].
vi. Usha Devi & Others Versus Ram Kumar Singh & Others [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1915].
vii. Manohar @ Prabhakar Purushottamrao Wakil (dead) through LRs.
Vanita Manohar Wakil & Others Versus Goma Nagoji Kamble (dead)
through LRs. Kamlabai Gomaji Kamble & Others [2015(4) Mh.L.J. 643].
viii. Gaurav Balmukund & Others Versus Tukaram Pandurang Dhagekar
(since dead) through his L.Rs. Vimlabai Tukaram Dhagekar & Others
[2018(4) Mh.L.J. 709].
ix. Dahiben Versus Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead
Through Legal representatives & Others [(2020) 7 SCC 366].
x. Rajendra Bajoria & Others Versus Hemant Kumar Jalan & Others
[(2022) 12 SCC 641].
1002CRA117-25.odt 9 Judgment
xi. Raghwendra Sharan Singh Versus Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by
legal representatives [(2020) 16 SCC 601].
xii. Sree Surya Developers And Promoters Versus N. Sailesh Prasad &
Others [(2022) 5 SCC 736].
xiii. Ramisetty Venkatanna & Another Versus Nasyam Jamal Saheb &
Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 521].
xiv. Suman Parmananddas Mundhada & Others Saroj Screens Primvate
Ltd. & Others [1992(2) Mh.L.J. 1460].
xv. D.N. Joshi (dead) through legal representatives & Others Versus
D.C. Harris & Another [(2017) 12 SCC 624].
11. Per contra, Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the non-
applicant no.1-original plaintiff vehemently opposed the revision
application and supported the impugned order. He submitted that the
application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code deserved to be
rejected as the defendants failed to demonstrate from the averments in the
plaint that the suit is barred by any law. He submitted that the averments
in the plaint categorically demonstrated that the suit filed by the plaintiff
seeking declaration of the sale-deed dated 24.10.2020 to be void and
seeking specific performance of contract is absolutely within limitation. He
submitted that the plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint about the
cause of action based on the unilateral cancellation of the agreements
which clearly show that the suit is well within limitation. He also
submitted that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law
and at this stage it cannot be conclusively inferred that the plaint deserved
to be rejected only on account of the suit being barred by limitation. He
also submitted that the plaintiff has narrated the cause of action in the
1002CRA117-25.odt 10 Judgment
entire plaint demonstrating the sequence of events and in paragraph 23 of
the plaint, has specified the details about the cause of action. He also
submitted that the plaintiff has specifically alleged fraud by the
defendants and in the wake of categorical averments about collusion and
fraud, the contentions about limitation loses its significance.
12. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the non-
applicant no.1 invited the Court's attention to the various pleadings from
the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff has specifically put up a case
that in accordance with the agreements dated 06.10.1995 and 21.11.1995,
the plaintiff has made payments from time to time which are accepted by
the defendants and in consideration of the payments the defendants have
delivered vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
has specifically averred that the possession of the property is given to him
in part performance of the contract of sale and it was agreed between the
parties that the sale-deed will be executed in favour of the plaintiff by the
defendant nos.1 and 2 only after Mr.Prataprao delivers vacant possession
of the portion of the property occupied by him. The plaintiff has also
averred that the said two agreements are still subsisting and are in force
and the unilateral cancellation of those agreements by the defendant no.1
is already subjected to challenge by way of the suit. The plaintiff has also
specifically averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has been and even today
is ready and willing to perform his part of obligation under the agreements
dated 06.10.1995 and 21.11.1995. Further, the plaintiff has also specifically
averred in the plaint that the decree passed in favour of the defendant
1002CRA117-25.odt 11 Judgment
no.8 was obtained by fraud and by misleading the Members of Lok-Adalat
and acting in collusion and connivance with the defendant nos.1 and 2
with an intention to deprive the plaintiff of his valuable right based on the
agreements. The learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1 invited
attention to the pleadings in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the plaint which
contain specific averments about fraud against the plaintiff and submitted
that the plaint discloses a cause of action.
13. As regards the objection under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 of the
Code, he submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to raise objection to the
execution proceedings which is already raised and at the same time the
plaintiff is entitled to claim specific reliefs as claimed in the suit. He
submitted that the reliefs claimed in the suit could not be claimed in the
objection under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 read with Sections 47 and 151
of the Code and as such the contentions of the revision applicant in that
regard are devoid of substance. He thus submitted that the case as put up
by the plaintiff needs adjudication on the basis of evidence and the plaint
cannot at all be considered to be worthy of rejection, much less, under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following
case laws:-
i. Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah & Others Versus Anton Elis Farel &
Others [(2006) 3 SCC 634].
ii. P.Kumarakurubaran Versus P. Narayanan & Others [2025(4) ALT 76].
iii. Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited & Others Versus Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Others [(2022) 2 SCC 382].
1002CRA117-25.odt 12 Judgment
iv. Geetha Versus Nanjundaswamy & Others [AIR 2023 SC 5516].
v. Central Bank of India & Others Versus Prabha Jain & Others
[2025(4) SCC 38].
vi. Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited Versus Ashok Vidyarthi &
Othersb [2023 INSC 1043].
vii. P.Ramasubbamma Versus V. Vijayalakshmi & Ors [(2022) 7 SCC 384].
viii. K.S. Manjunath & Others Versus Moorasavirappa & Others [2025
INSC 1298].
CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE LAWS
14. The judgments relied upon by Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior
Advocate for the revision applicant in Urvashi Aggarwal (since deceased)
through legal representatives & Another , Fatehji & Company & Another
and K.Raheja Constructions Ltd. & Another (supra) are in support of the
contentions that the suit filed by the plaintiff in the instant matter, seeking
specific performance of contract after almost 28 years is not maintainable
and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
only on this count. On the basis of position of law as laid down in Usha
Devi & Others and Manohar @ Prabhakar Purushottamrao Wakil (dead)
through LRs. Vanita Manohar Wakil & Others (Supra), it is contended that
the suit filed by the plaintiff falls within the first limb of Article 54 of the
Limitation Act and the plaint thus deserve to be rejected.
15. He also placed reliance on judgment in Gaurav Balmukund & Others
(supra) and submitted that since a specific date was decided in the
agreement to sell, the period of limitation got triggered from that date and
as such the suit having not been filed considering the said date, the same
1002CRA117-25.odt 13 Judgment
has to be rejected being barred by limitation. This judgment is discussed
in later part of this judgment.
16. Reliance is also placed by the applicant on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dahiben (supra), which elaborately deals with the
position of law with respect to the applicability of provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code. Pertinent to note, even the counsel for the non-
applicant has also relied upon this judgment and the position of law
including the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code is not disputed.
17. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in Rajendra Bajoria &
Others, Raghwendra Sharan Singh, Sree Surya Developers And Promoters ,
Ramisetty Venkatanna & Another, Suman Parmananddas Mundhada &
Others and D.N. Joshi (dead) through legal representatives & Others
(supra) to highlight the contentions that on a meaningful reading of the
plaint, in absence of any cause of action, the plaint deserves to be rejected.
It is submitted that in case by clever drafting an illusion of a cause of
action is created the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code are
required to be exercised
18. For refuting the arguments of applicant and to buttress his own
submissions, Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the non-applicant
no.1 also placed reliance on several judgments. By relying on the
judgment in Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah & Others (supra), he submitted
that since the agreements in question are admitted, although issues about
1002CRA117-25.odt 14 Judgment
interpretation of the clauses are raised, there is no question of rejection of
plaint without leading any evidence. By relying upon judgment in P.
Kumarakurubaran (supra), he submitted that contentions of fraud as
averred in the plaint require trial and nothing can be conclusively inferred
at this stage without an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence.
19. By relying on the judgment in Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited
& Others, Geetha, Central Bank of India & Others, Eldeco Housing and
Industries Limited and P.Ramasubbamma (supra), he submitted that the
plaint cannot be rejected by considering only a few clauses from the
agreement or on the contentions that some relief is barred by limitation
and even a plaint cannot be rejected in part. By relying on judgment in
K.S. Manjunath & Others (supra), he submitted that a unilateral
cancellation of an agreement is absolutely impermissible and no
conclusions can be arrived at this stage without an opportunity to the
plaintiff to lead evidence to demonstrate illegality of the unilateral
cancellation of the agreement.
20. He submitted that the case as put up by the plaintiff need to be
decided on the basis of evidence and in view of the disputed questions of
fact even the question of limitation which is a mixed question of facts and
law, will have to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence.
21. Rival contentions thus fall for my consideration.
1002CRA117-25.odt 15 Judgment
CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS
22. The crux of the controversy involved in the instant civil revision
application is whether the plaint deserved to be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the Code. The primary contentions canvassed on behalf of
the revision applicant are that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by
limitation and secondly that the plaint does not disclose any cause of
action.
23. It has to be noted that the suit is filed for seeking a declaration
about cancellation of the sale-deed dated 24.10.2020 executed in favour
of the defendant no.8 and a separate relief is sought about declaration and
specific performance with respect to the agreements dated 06.10.1995
and 21.11.1995. The plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint that he
got knowledge about the unilateral cancellation of the aforesaid
agreements on 01.07.2021 and the suit as filed from the date of knowledge
is well within limitation. The plaintiff has also specifically made allegations
of fraud on the part of the defendants. As regards the cause of action, the
plaintiff has narrated various events in the entire plaint and has pleaded
specifically about cause of action in paragraph 23 of the plaint.
24. While testing legality of the impugned order, the parameters of the
provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code need to be kept in mind. It
is beneficial to refer to the position of law as laid down in Dahiben (supra)
in which after analysing several authoritative pronouncements, the
position of law is clarified and reiterated and the relevant paragraphs from
this judgment are reproduced below:-
1002CRA117-25.odt 16 Judgment
"23.2 The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and
special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily
dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record
evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence
adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on
any of the grounds contained in this provision.
23.4 In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, this Court held that the
whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove
abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the
court, in the following words :
"12. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to
prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of
the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The
sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head
unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary
civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject
a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."
23.6 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to
determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by
scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with
the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any
law.
23.9 In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would
determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to
statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for
rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
24.1 In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam, this
Court held:-
"24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if
traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an
order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other
words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law
applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against
the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant
since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can
possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of
the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it
is founded.""
1002CRA117-25.odt 17 Judgment
25. The position of law is no more res integra that an application for
rejection of plaint has to be considered on the basis of averments in the
plaint. In the wake of specific pleadings in the plaint about the suit being
within limitation since it is filed from the date of knowledge of unilateral
cancellation of the agreements, the contentions canvassed on behalf of the
applicant about the suit being barred by limitation based on the clauses of
the agreement dated 06.10.1995 and supplementary agreement dated
21.11.1995, cannot be accepted. It is also important to note that the
plaintiff has elaborately stated the acts of fraud on the part of the
defendants and there are allegations of fraud against the defendants
which needs adjudication on the basis of evidence and without evidence
nothing can be concluded at this stage on the basis of bare contentions.
26. The position of law is settled that an issue of limitation is a mixed
question of facts and law. On considering the averments as pleaded in the
plaint, the question of limitation cannot at all be considered to be a purely
question of law in the instant case. In view of the case put up by the
plaintiff in the plaint, the issue of limitation in the instant case will have to
be decided on the basis of evidence.
27. As regards the reliance placed by the applicant on the judgment
in Gaurav Balmukund & Others (supra), while considering the facts in
that case, it has to be noted that it was a suit for declaration and
specific performance of contract which was filed in the year 2011,
seeking a declaration in respect of a sale-deed of the year 1983 and
1002CRA117-25.odt 18 Judgment
specific performance of an agreement in which the date for performance
was fixed as 13.10.1997 and the suit was found to have been filed beyond
limitation with respect to both the reliefs. In that background, the
rejection of the plaint was upheld. However, in the instant case, the
plaintiff has sought for a declaration with respect to a sale-deed dated
24.10.2020 by the suit which is filed on 15.04.2023. Apart from this,
there are elaborate pleadings about fraud and collusion on the part of the
defendants. Hence, the position of law laid down in the judgment in
Gaurav Balmukund & Others (supra) is not of any assistance to the
revision applicant.
28. Although revision applicant has vehemently submitted that the
relief of declaration as prayed in Prayer Clause (a) of the plaint is
secondary and the relief of specific performance as prayed in Prayer
Clause (b) is primary, however, on entire reading of the plaint, it cannot
be concluded that the suit is filed only for relief of specific performance of
contract. There are elaborate averments about the transaction in between
the parties in the entire plaint and challenge is raised to the sale-deed
dated 24.10.2020 which will have to be adjudicated on the basis of
evidence.
29. As regards the contentions canvassed on behalf of the applicant
about the absence of cause of action, it has to be noted that the plaintiff
has put up a case for challenge to the sale-deed dated 24.10.2020 based
upon elaborate pleadings. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff for
1002CRA117-25.odt 19 Judgment
cancellation of the sale-deed and specific performance of the agreement
dated 06.10.1995 and supplementary agreement dated 21.11.1995, are
also based on the specific averments in the plaint. The entitlement of the
plaintiff for the reliefs claimed will be decided after adjudication of the
controversy based upon evidence to be led by the parties. At this stage on
the basis of bare reading of the plaint, any conclusion cannot be reached
or inference cannot be drawn that the plaint does not at all disclose any
cause of action.
30. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the legal position about
recourse to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, where several reliefs are sought in
the suit. It is beneficial to refer to the recent authoritative pronouncement
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Karam Sikngh Versus Amarjit
Singh & Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240], in which while dealing with
an identical controversy about rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule
11(d) of the Code, the basic principle is reiterated in paragraph 15, which
is reproduced below:-
"15. Before we assess the correctness of the impugned
orders, we must remind ourselves of the basic principles
governing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
Here, the defendants seek rejection of plaint under clause (d)
of Rule 11 (i.e., suit barred by law). Clause (d) makes it clear
that while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only
the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be
reconsidered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At
this stage, the defence is not to be considered. Thus, whether
the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the
basis of averments made in the plaint."
1002CRA117-25.odt 20 Judgment
While dealing with identical issues arising from a plaint where several
reliefs were sought, the position of law is clarified in paragraph 19, which
reads thus:-
"19. That apart, where several reliefs are sought in suit, if
any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the
plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse
to Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC."
In my view, these pertinent observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court are
applicable in the instant case, where plaintiff has claimed several reliefs in
the suit as stated above.
31. Having regard to the case put up by the plaintiff in the plaint
based on the agreement dated 06.10.1995 and the supplementary
agreement dated 21.11.1995 and particularly considering the clauses of
these two agreements, the contentions canvassed on behalf of the
applicant cannot be accepted without allowing the parties to lead
evidence.
32. As regards the contentions about conduct of parallel proceedings of
the objection under Order XXI Rules 97 and 98 of the Code and the civil
suit, I am in respectful agreement with the submissions of the counsel for
the non-applicant no.1 that the reliefs claimed in the two proceedings are
different and the plaintiff cannot be deprived from contesting the suit by
leading evidence, even though he has raised an objection to the execution
of the decree.
1002CRA117-25.odt 21 Judgment
33. Although learned counsel for the respective parties have made
elaborate submissions about interpretation of various clauses of the
agreement dated 06.10.1995 and the supplementary agreement dated
21.11.1995, considering the final order which this Court proposes to pass in
the instant matter, this Court refrains itself from recording any observations
about meaning/interpretation of the specific terms in the clauses of the
agreements since it is subject matter of adjudication based on evidence.
Since the controversy involved in the suit is required to be decided by
considering the purport and effect of various clauses of the agreement, it
is desirable that the parties are permitted to lead evidence to prove their
respective contentions and the issues are allowed to be decided by the
trial Court on the basis of evidence.
34. Having regard to the abovementioned factual and legal aspects, I
am of the firm view that the plaint as filed by the plaintiff containing
elaborate pleadings about fraud and about challenge to unilateral
cancellation of agreements does not warrant outright rejection under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
35. On perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, I find the view
taken by the trial Court is a plausible view based on the documents on
record. The trial Court has recorded its inferences based on the averments
in the plaint and passed the order within the parameters of Order VII Rule
11 of the Code by relying upon relevant position of law. As such no
perversity is seen with the impugned order.
1002CRA117-25.odt 22 Judgment
36. After giving anxious consideration to the arguments canvassed on
behalf of the revision applicant as well as non-applicants, no interference
is warranted with the impugned order. The civil revision application is
accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE
At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant prays for
continuation of the interim arrangement for a period of six weeks to
enable the applicant to approach to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By the
interim arrangement, the request for adjournment before the trial Court
was directed to be considered favourably.
Although the request is opposed, considering the fact that the
interim arrangement was continued during pendency of the Civil Revision
Application, the said interim arrangement shall continue for a period of
six weeks from today. After expiry of period six weeks, this arrangement
shall cease to operate.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/02/2026 19:28:15
