Courts Should Not Be Hesitant In Rejecting Plaint Where It Is Glaring From It That Suit Is Hopelessly Barred By Limitation: SC
The Supreme Court has observed that Courts should not be hesitant in granting relief under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC in cases where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
The Court set aside the findings of the Bombay High Court which dismissed the application by the Appellants challenging the Order of the Civil Court which had rejected the Appellants’ application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of a plaint being barred by limitation.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that “we are not unmindful of the position of law that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting the plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record. However, in cases like this, where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial Court. We again place it on record that this is not a case where any forgery or fabrication is committed which had recently come to the knowledge of the plaintiff.”
Senior Advocate Amar Dave represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Sunil Fernandes appeared for the Respondents.
The Respondent had files a suit for declaration of his ownership and possession in respect of the suit properties. Seeking rejection of the said plaint, the Appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground that the relief sought in the suit was clearly barred by limitation. The trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellants stating that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law, for which, the parties will have to lead evidence.
The Supreme Court observed that though the question of limitation generally involves mixed question of law and facts, when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, Courts can come to a conclusion that under the given circumstances, after dissecting “the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.”
“It is also evident on the face of record that the Plaintiff is a stranger to the suit properties; on the contrary, the Defendants are the owners of the suit properties. It is a settled principle of law that the owners cannot be restrained from dealing with their own properties at the instance of a stranger. The said relief is again a consequential relief to the claim of title, which has been non-suited on the ground of limitation. Hence, the prayer (c) made in the plaint is not maintainable,” the Bench remarked.
Regarding the averments made in the plaint relating to fraud played on the plaintiff by the defendants in relation to the compromise decrees obtained in their favour, the Court stated that they were “vague and general, besides baseless and unsubstantiated. Rather, no case can be culled out from the averments made in the plaint in this regard.”
“The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC is applicable to third parties as well and the only remedy available to them would be to approach the same court. In the present case, such an exercise is also not possible in view of the bar of limitation. Hence, we find the suit to be unsustainable,” the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “The spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. The Courts by being reluctant only cause more harm to the defendants by forcing them to undergo the ordeal of leading evidence. Therefore, we hold that the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr.
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Amar Dave; Advocates Parimal Shroff, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Ankur Saigal, S. Lakshmi Iyer and Nidhi; AOR E.C. Agrawala
Respondents: Senior Advocate Sunil Fernandes; Advocates Diksha Dadu, Sachin Patil, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Geo Joseph, Durgesh Gupta and Risvi Muhammed; AOR Nupur Kumar and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande