Rejection of plaint — Scope — Limitation — Mixed question of law and fact — Suit for specific performance — Agreement of sale dated 15.04.2010 — Suit filed in 2025 — Plea in plaint that cause of action arose on refusal in 2025 — Whether plaint barred ex facie by limitation — Held, when plaint pleads later accrual of cause of action, issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Trial Court justified in rejecting application — However, limitation and cause of action being foundational, Trial Court directed to frame preliminary issue and decide expeditiously after permitting evidence.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d)
Rejection of plaint — Scope — Limitation — Mixed question of law and fact — Suit for specific performance — Agreement of sale dated 15.04.2010 — Suit filed in 2025 — Plea in plaint that cause of action arose on refusal in 2025 — Whether plaint barred ex facie by limitation — Held, when plaint pleads later accrual of cause of action, issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Trial Court justified in rejecting application — However, limitation and cause of action being foundational, Trial Court directed to frame preliminary issue and decide expeditiously after permitting evidence.
Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54
Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation — Date fixed for performance or date of refusal — Determination dependent on pleadings and evidence — Cannot be conclusively determined at threshold where plaintiff pleads later refusal.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XIV Rule 2
Preliminary issue — Limitation — Court empowered and required to decide as preliminary issue where it goes to root of jurisdiction.
FACTS OF THE CASE (AS PLEADED AND RECORDED)
-
Respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance based on:
-
An alleged oral agreement dated 10.11.2009, and
-
A written agreement to sell dated 15.04.2010,
allegedly executed by the father/husband of the present applicants.
-
-
Suit property comprised Khasra Nos. 235/21 and 235/22, situated at Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
-
Plaintiff pleaded payment of:
-
₹51,000/- as earnest money, and
-
₹12,00,000/- in cash at the time of execution of the written agreement,
followed by delivery of possession.
-
-
The executant died on 06.11.2018.
-
Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03.05.2025 and instituted the suit on 09.05.2025 / 14.05.2025, i.e., more than 15 years after the alleged agreement.
-
Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that:
-
No agreement was executed,
-
The agreement is forged,
-
The suit is ex facie barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
-
-
The Trial Court rejected the application on 08.10.2025, holding that the objections raised involved mixed questions of fact and law.
-
Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed the present Civil Revision.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
-
Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as being barred by limitation on the face of the plaint?
-
Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error in holding that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law?
-
What is the proper procedural course where limitation goes to the root of the matter but is not ex facie apparent?
ANALYSIS AND REASONING
-
The Court reiterated the settled scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, namely that:
-
Only the averments in the plaint are to be examined;
-
Defence pleas or disputed facts cannot be considered;
-
Rejection is permissible only where the bar is ex facie apparent.
-
-
The Court relied extensively upon the recent authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan (2025 INSC 598), wherein it was held that:
-
Limitation ordinarily constitutes a mixed question of fact and law;
-
Where the plaint pleads a particular date of knowledge or refusal, such plea must be assumed to be true at the threshold;
-
Rejection of plaint is impermissible unless the suit is demonstrably barred on the face of the plaint itself.
-
-
Applying the above principles, the Court noted:
-
Though the agreement is of the year 2010, the plaintiff has pleaded that the cause of action accrued later;
-
Whether such plea is genuine or merely an attempt to overcome limitation requires evidence.
-
-
The Court held that:
-
The Trial Court was correct in refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC;
-
However, limitation and cause of action go to the root of the matter and cannot be left open indefinitely.
-
-
Consequently, the Court found it necessary to strike a procedural balance by:
-
Declining interference at the Order VII Rule 11 stage, but
-
Directing the Trial Court to frame a preliminary issue on limitation and cause of action and decide the same expeditiously after permitting evidence.
-
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where the plaint pleads that the cause of action for specific performance accrued at a later point of time, the issue of limitation cannot be summarily adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless the suit is ex facie barred on the plaint averments themselves; however, when limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction, the Trial Court must frame and decide it as a preliminary issue after permitting evidence.
FINAL ORDER / DIRECTIONS
-
Civil Revision dismissed insofar as challenge to rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application.
-
Trial Court directed to:
-
Frame an appropriate preliminary issue on limitation and cause of action;
-
Permit parties to lead evidence;
-
Decide the preliminary issue strictly in accordance with law and expeditiously.
-
-
If the suit is ultimately found barred by limitation, appropriate orders may be passed.
