The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna opined 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 O7R11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation.
Facts
The respondents herein – (original plaintiffs) had instituted a Title Suit against the respondents herein (original defendants). Having served with the suit notice, the defendants applied before the trial court requesting to reject the plaint under O7R11 CPC mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit for a declaration simpliciter u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable. That the trial court rejected the said application and refused to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under O7R11 CPC
Procedural History
Feeling dissatisfied, the original defendants preferred revision application/application before the High Court which quashed the order passed by the trial court and consequently allowed the application under O7R11 CPC and rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit for a declaration simpliciter u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable against the actual owner. Feeling aggrieved, the original plaintiffs preferred the present appeal.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The High Court erred in allowing the application under O7R11 CPC and rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. It did not consider the entire suit averments and the averments in the plaint.
Respondent: They supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“However, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has set aside the order passed by the trial court and allowed the application under O7R11 CPC and has rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation as well as the suit for a declaration simpliciter u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable… 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 O7R11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation. At this stage what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint… while considering an application under O7R11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint.
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.”
Judgment
The impugned orders passed by the High Court were set aside. The application submitted by the original defendants to reject the plaint under O7R11 CPC was dismissed. The order passed by the trial court stood restored.
Case Name: Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr. vs Smt. Sulanga Bose & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1848 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 14th March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
