Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem Moters Pvt. Ltd. Reg. Office At ... vs Rajendra Upadhyay on 18 September, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
1 CR-339-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 339 of 2025
PREM MOTERS PVT. LTD. REG. OFFICE AT KANWAL COMPLEX
ROAD A.G. OFFICE GWALIOR THROUGH MANAING DIRECTO
Versus
RAJENDRA UPADHYAY
Appearance:
Shri A.V.Bhardwaj - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Gaurav Samadhiya- Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This civil revision under Section 115 C.P.C. has been filed against
order dated 06/03/2025 passed by Twentieth Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Gwalior in Regular Civil Suit No.781-A/2022 by which an application filed
by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been rejected.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are
that respondent has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to
the effect that two blank cheques were given to defendant, which were not to
be encashed and those cheques were to be kept by defendant in his safe
custody. Later on, it was found that defendant with a dishonest intention has
filled up the entries and has got the cheques bounced and instituted a
proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short,
"N.I.Act") and accordingly, during the cross-examination of defendant, it
was alleged by defendant that cheques were issued in discharge of legal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
2 CR-339-2025
liability and accordingly, the cause of action for filing civil suit arose on
03/08/2022. The suit was filed for declaration that two cheques No.091287
and 091288 were given to defendant only for keeping the same in safe
custody and on the basis of those cheques, defendant is not entitled to
receive any amount and a mandatory injunction was also prayed that
defendant be directed to return the blank cheques back to plaintiff and in
case if cheques are not returned, then they should be treated as cancelled.
3. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. was filed on the
ground that not only the suit does not disclose any cause of action, but it is
also barred by time.
4. By the impugned order dated 06/03/2025, the Trial Court has
rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. on the ground
that present plaint does not appear to have been cleverly drafted to avoid
question of limitation.
5. Challenging the order passed by Trial Court, it is submitted by
counsel for applicant that in the plaint itself, respondent/plaintiff has
specifically stated that he came to know about the fact that
defendant/applicant is claiming that cheques in question were issued in
discharge of legal liability only when certain statements were made during
cross-examination and thus, the cause of action arose on 03/08/2022. It is
submitted that it is clear from paragraph 9 of plaint that plaintiff has
suppressed the fact of pendency of proceeding under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
It is further submitted that plaintiff has deliberately and cleverly suppressed
the fact of filing of MCRC Nos.10130/2016 and 10131/2016, which were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
3 CR-339-2025
dismissed by this Court by order dated 06/10/2016 and SLP against both the
orders were also dismissed. Thus, it is submitted that plaintiff/respondent was
aware of fact that cheques issued by him were presented before bank, and
they have been returned back and proceeding under Section 138 of N.I.Act
has been initiated. It is further submitted that while arguing MCRC
Nos.10130/2016 and 10131/2016, it was also alleged by respondent that
cheques were not issued in discharge of debt or legal liability, therefore, it is
submitted that at least cause of action arose on the day when
respondent/plaintiff came to know for the first time that cheques were
presented before the bank, and they have been returned back. It is further
submitted that it is well established principle of law that for deciding an
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. the Court must do
meaningful reading of entire plaint and if it is found that plaint has been
cleverly drafted with an intention to give an illusory impression about the
maintainability of plaint, then such plaint should be rejected at the first
instance.
6. Per contra, the civil revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondent. It is submitted that only when applicant/defendant stated in his
cross-examination that cheques were issued in discharge of legal liability,
then respondent/plaintiff came to know that cheques issued by him, have
been misused and thus, the suit is within the period of limitation. It is further
submitted by counsel for respondent that question of limitation is mixed
question of fact and law, and therefore, it can be decided only after recording
of evidence and relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
4 CR-339-2025
case of P. Kumarakurubaran Vs. P. Narayanan & Ors. decided on
29/04/2025 in Civil Appeal No.5622/2025.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Before considering the civil revision, this Court would like to
consider the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram
Prasanna Singh, (2020) 16 SCC 601 has held as under:-
"6.4. In T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal , (1977)
4 SCC 467] , while considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7
Rule 11 CPC and the decree of the trial court in considering such
application, this Court in para 5 has observed and held as under: (SCC
p. 470)
"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the
petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court
repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the
statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High
Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before
the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of
the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned
Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful -- not
formal -- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious,
and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to
sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a
cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by
examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An
activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits."
6.5. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable
Society [Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable
Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust , (2012) 8 SCC 706 : (2012)
4 SCC (Civ) 612] , this Court in para 13 has observed and held as
under: (SCC p. 715)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
5 CR-339-2025
"13. While scrutinising the plaint averments, it is the
bounden duty of the trial court to ascertain the materials for
cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts
which taken with the law applicable to them gives the
plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Every fact
which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him
to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is
worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words "cause of
action". A cause of action must include some act done by
the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause
of action can possibly accrue."
6.6. In ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [ABC Laminart (P)
Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies , (1989) 2 SCC 163] , this Court explained the
meaning of "cause of action" as follows: (SCC p. 170, para 12)
"12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed,
it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in 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. It does not comprise evidence
necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for
the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree.
Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a
right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of
action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which
may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the
character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff."
6.7. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity
Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] in paras 11 and 12, this Court has
observed as under: (SCC p. 146)
"11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ,
(1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
6 CR-339-2025
decided while dealing with an application filed under Order
7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has
been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has
been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code.
12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful
and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly
vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a
clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order
7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground
mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created
the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the
bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly
under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal , (1977) 4
SCC 467] .)"
6.8. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy [Madanuri Sri Rama
Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal , (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC
(Civ) 602] , this Court has observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 178-
79, para 7)
"7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if
conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It
is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC can be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit.
The relevant facts which need to be looked into for
deciding the application are the averments of the plaint
only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it
is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless
in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court
should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since
the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at
the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection
of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of
the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
7 CR-339-2025
averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is
barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the
question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would
always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. The averments in the written statement as well as the
contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while
considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the
plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are
taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they
show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose
cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be
entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can
be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the
illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud
at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier
stage."
6.9. In Ram Singh [Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan ,
(1986) 4 SCC 364] , this Court has observed and held that when the
suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent
that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of
those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation.
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions
on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the
case in hand and the averments in the plaint, we are of the opinion that
both the courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint
in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is required to be
noted that it is not in dispute that the gift deed was executed by the
original plaintiff himself along with his brother. The deed of gift was a
registered gift deed. The execution of the gift deed is not disputed by
the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a showy
deed of gift and therefore the same is not binding on him. However, it
is required to be noted that for approximately 22 years, neither the
plaintiff nor his brother (who died on 15-12-2002) claimed at any
point of time that the gift deed was showy deed of gift. One of the
executants of the gift deed, brother of the plaintiff during his lifetime
never claimed that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift. It was the
appellant herein-original defendant who filed the suit in the year 2001
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
8 CR-339-2025
for partition and the said suit was filed against his brothers to which
the plaintiff was joined as Defendant 10. It appears that the summon of
the suit filed by the defendant being TS (Partition) Suit No. 203 of
2001 was served upon Defendant 10-plaintiff herein in the year 2001
itself. Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003.
Even from the averments in the plaint, it appears that during these 22
years i.e. the period from 1981 till 2001/2003, the suit property was
mortgaged by the appellant herein-original defendant and the
mortgage deed was executed by the defendant. Therefore, considering
the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint,
we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to
bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is
barred by law of limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of
this Court in T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal ,
(1977) 4 SCC 467] and others, as stated above, and as the suit is
clearly barred by law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected
in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC."
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant
Kumar Jalan, (2022) 12 SCC 641 has held as under:-
13. No doubt that, it is rightly contended on behalf of the plaintiffs
that, only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, it could be
ascertained as to whether a cause of action is made out or not. It is
equally true that for finding out the same, the entire pleadings in the
plaint will have to be read and that too, at their face value. At this
stage, the defence taken by the defendants cannot be looked into.
14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal ,
(1977) 4 SCC 467] : (SCC p. 470, para 5)
"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the
petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
9 CR-339-2025
repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the
statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High
Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before
the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of
the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned
Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful -- not
formal -- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious,
and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to
sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule
11CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein
is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion
of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by
examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An
activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The
trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the
party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot
down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also
resourceful enough to meet such men (Cr. XI) and must be
triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his
cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:
"It is dangerous to be too good."
11. It is true that for deciding an application filed under Order 7 Rule
11 C.P.C. only plaint averments or documents filed alongwith plaint are to
be seen. However, when the Court comes to a conclusion that the plaint has
been cleverly drafted to give an illusory impression about the maintainability
of suit, then such vexatious litigation must be nipped at very first instance.
12. In the present case, in paragraph No.9 of plaint,
plaintiff/respondent has specifically admitted that only during the course of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
10 CR-339-2025
cross-examination, plaintiff came to know that defendant has treated the
cheques to have been issued in discharge of legal liability. Plaintiff has
cleverly suppressed the fact of institution of proceedings under Section 138
of N.I.Act. Plaintiff has cleverly suppressed fact that the said proceedings
were challenged by him before the High Court by filing MCRC
Nos.10130/2016 and 10131/2016 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in those
proceedings also, it was claimed by him that cheques were never issued in
discharge of legal liability. Although, it is the contention of counsel for
respondent/plaintiff that those petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
were rejected with an observation that the defence taken by
respondent/plaintiff is a disputed question of fact which can be established
only after the evidence is led but at present, we are not concerned about the
merits of the case. At present, we are concerned about the fact that what was
date on which plaintiff/respondent came to know for the first time about the
use/misuse of his two cheques in question. Since the order-sheets of Trial
Court before whom the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act are
pending, have not been filed, therefore, this Court is not aware of the fact
that when plaintiff/respondent appeared before trial Magistrate for the first
time, but it is clear that MCRC Nos.10130/2016 and 10131/2016 were filed
by respondent/plaintiff on 17/08/2016 and both applications were dismissed
by order dated 06/10/2016. According to applicant even SLP filed by
respondent/plaintiff was dismissed. Thus, one thing is clear that at least on
17/08/2016 i.e. the date on which MCRC Nos.10130/2016 and 10131/2016
were filed, it was within the knowledge of respondent/plaintiff that his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
11 CR-339-2025
cheques have been used/misused and they were presented and have been
returned back by bank. If respondent/plaintiff was of the view that cheques
which were issued by him were not in discharge of legal liability but were
given to applicant/defendant with an intention to keep them in his safe
custody, then the cause of action had already arisen and the suit should have
been filed within a period of three years from thereafter whereas in the
present case, the suit has been filed in the month of August, 2022.
13. So far as the question as to whether, a plaint can be rejected under
Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. on the ground of limitation is concerned, counsel
for respondent/plaintiff is correct in submitting that generally question of
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, however, the Supreme Court
in the case of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs. Sri
Bala & Co. decided on 8/1/2025 in C.A. No.1525 of 2023 has held that on
plain reading of plaint if suit is found to be barred by time then it can be
dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
14. Accordingly, it is clear that upon meaningful reading of entire
pleadings of plaint, if it is clear as noon day that the suit is barred by time,
then the suit can also be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. on the
ground of limitation.
15. Thus, it is held that since, respondent/plaintiff was already aware
of fact that cheques in question have already been used by
applicant/defendant and had presented the same before Bank and upon return
of those cheques, applicant/defendant has already filed a proceeding under
Section 138 of N.I.Act, then the suit should have been filed within a period
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22756
12 CR-339-2025
of three years from the date of gaining knowledge as already pointed out at
least on 17/08/2016 i.e. the date on which MCRC Nos.10130/2016 and
10131/2016 were filed. Respondent/plaintiff was aware of the fact that
cheques which have been issued by him have been used/misused by
applicant/defendant.
16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
suit which has been filed by plaintiff/respondent in the month of August,
2022 is clearly barred by time. Thus, the Trial Court committed material
illegality by rejecting the application filed by applicant/defendant under
Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. Accordingly, order dated 06/03/2025 passed by
Twentieth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior in Regular Civil Suit
No.781-A/2022 is hereby set aside. Application filed by applicant under
Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. is allowed and civil suit filed by
respondent/plaintiff is hereby dismissed as barred by time.
17. Civil revision succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
