High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.11 18:21:12 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:44105 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AFR CR No. 153 of 2025 1 - Rajeshwari Devi Agrawal W/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 2 - Mukesh Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 3 - Rajendra Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 4 - Jitendra Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. ... Applicants versus 1 - Saroj Kumar Gupta S/o Late Bhupendra Prasad Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Road No. 3, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 2 - Dharmendra Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Non-applicants 2 For Applicants : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For State/Non-applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Govt. Advocate No.3 29.08.2025 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants/defendants assailing the order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the 10th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Durg (C.G.), whereby, in Civil Suit No. A/234 of 2024, their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) has been dismissed. The trial Court has held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and can only be determined during the course of trial. 2. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and the impugned order dated order dated 25/01/2025 ANNEXURE - A/1 passed in the civil suit Class A/234/2024 pending before the learned Court below (4th Civil 3 Judge, Junior Grade, Durg, C.G.). may kindly be set aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. The case as projected by the applicants/defendants is that the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract, alleging that an oral agreement dated 10.01.1989 was entered into between the parties. It is pleaded that, pursuant to the said oral agreement, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid as advance, and subsequently, on various dates, further payments were made in accordance with the terms of the agreement, aggregating to Rs.1,10,000/-. It is further averred that, although there was no written agreement to sell executed, the understanding was in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 65/02, area 0.80 hectares, situated at Village Kohka, P.H. No.14, District Durg
Facts
(C.G.). The plaintiff has alleged that whenever he requested the defendants to execute the sale deed after payment of the entire consideration amount, the defendants never denied the agreement; on the contrary, they assured him that they would execute the sale deed in his favour. On 10.10.2017, an application for mutation was moved by late Motilal Agrawal, wherein it was categorically stated that the land in question had already been sold by their father, though the registered sale deed could not be executed. Subsequently, on 29.07.2024, the plaintiff came to know that the land for which the agreement was entered and the entire consideration was paid, had been demarcated at the instance of some other person. The plaintiff came to know about 4 such demarcation as he owns the adjacent land and a notice regarding demarcation was also served upon him. On the basis of the said notice, the plaintiff made further inquiry. It is further pleaded that on 11.08.2024, certain person attempted to enter into the suit land and tried to remove the boundary pillar fixed by the plaintiff. Consequently, an application was moved on 11.08.2024 before Police Station Supela, District Durg. The police, however, advised the plaintiff to approach the competent civil Court. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose on 11.08.2024, and hence the suit was filed. 4. The defendants, however, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the same ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the alleged agreement, and therefore, is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. The plaintiff filed his reply denying the said contentions and reiterated that the cause of action arose only on 11.08.2024, and therefore, the suit is within limitation. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court, vide order dated 25.01.2025, dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be 5 decided at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It has further been held that the suit is not only for specific performance of contract, but also for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, and therefore, adjudication of the said issue would necessarily require trial. Accordingly, in the absence of a full-fledged trial, the suit could not be dismissed at the threshold. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants submits that, prima facie, the plaint itself discloses that the suit is barred by limitation. It is urged that the plaintiff has sought to project a fresh cause of action only with a view to bring the case within the period of limitation, whereas, in fact, the alleged oral agreement is of the year 1989, and even according to the plaintiff’s own pleadings, no registered sale deed was ever executed within the statutory period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the so-called cause of action, as pleaded by the plaintiff on the basis of alleged obstruction or demarcation proceedings in the year 2024, is nothing but an attempt to camouflage the real facts and artificially extend the limitation
Legal Reasoning
it cannot be said that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation so as to attract the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. On the contrary, the plaint specifically asserts that the cause of action arose in August 2024, and therefore, unless evidence is led to the contrary, the suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly, it cannot be held, solely on the basis of plaint averments, that the suit is barred by limitation. 15. In the matter of P. Kumarakurubaran (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of powers of the Court while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court, upon examining the plaint averments, categorically held that the question of limitation, unless it is apparent on the face of the plaint itself, cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint at the threshold. It was further 11 observed that when the plea of limitation involves disputed questions of fact, such an issue can only be decided after framing of issues and upon appreciation of evidence during trial. It has been further held that dismissal of a suit at the inception on the ground of limitation, by invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, would not be justified unless the plaint itself discloses that the suit is clearly barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accordingly, it was laid down that in circumstances where the plaint discloses a cause of action and limitation is dependent upon determination of factual aspects, the same must necessarily be adjudicated before the trial Court by observing as under :- “12.1 …….. At this preliminary stage, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true. Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation without permitting the parties to lead evidence, is legally unsustainable. 12.2. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the following decisions of this Court, which have consistently held that when the question of limitation involves disputed facts or hinges on the date of knowledge, such issues cannot 12 be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC: (i) Daliben Valjibhai & Others v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4105 “10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants made an application for correcting the revenue records only in the year 2017 and on the said application the Deputy Collector issued notice to the plaintiffs in March 2017 and that was the time when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deed. It is under these circumstances that the suit was instituted in the year 2017. While the High Court came to the correct conclusion that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in cases where the document is registered, the knowledge must be presumed from the date of registration. 11. 12. Further, in Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar where again a suit for cancellation of sale deed was opposed through an application under Order 7 Rule 11, on ground of limitation, this Court specifically held that limitation in all such cases will arise from date of knowledge. 13 The relevant portion is as follows: “15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18-10-1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. However, the specific case of the appellant- plaintiffs is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers, original Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their 14 possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (½) portion of the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realised that the original Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent 1- Defendant 5 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That view commends to us. 19. In the present case, we find that the appellant-plaintiffs have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original Defendants 1 and 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original Defendants 1 and 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestral property of the appellants. We affirm the view taken by the trial court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the 15 plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) ” CPC. (emphasis supplied) 13. In view of the above, there was no justification for the High Court in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments itself. The High Court was also not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself. In this view of the matter the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable.” (ii) Salim D. Agboatwala & Others v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Others (2021) 17 SCC 100 “11. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy [(2015) 8 SCC 331: (2015) 4 SCC (Civ) 100], the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage 16 of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11. 12. Again as pointed out by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar [(2018) 6 SCC 422 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 524], the plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and hence the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold. 13… 14. But a defendant in a suit cannot pick up a few sentences here and there from the plaint and contend that the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the proceedings and that therefore limitation started running from the date of constructive notice. In fact, the plea of constructive notice is raised by the respondents, after asserting positively that the plaintiffs had real knowledge as well as actual notice of the proceedings. In any case, the plea of constructive notice appears to be a subsequent invention.” (iii) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India & Another, (2020) 17 SCC 260 “6. The central question is: whether the plaint as filed by the appellant could have 17 been rejected by invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC? 7. Indeed, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC gives ample power to the court to reject the plaint, if from the averments in the plaint, it is evident that the suit is barred by any law including the law of limitation. This position is no more res integra. We may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta [(2007) 10 SCC 59]. In paras 13 to 20, the Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 65- 66) “13. As per Order 7 Rule 11, the plaint is liable to be rejected in the following cases: ‘(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; 18 (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9;’ 14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, [(2003) 1 SCC 557] it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code that: ‘9. … the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power … at any stage of the suit — before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.…’ (SCC p. 560, para 9). 15. 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 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 19 stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 16. “The trial court 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, it should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 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 CPC.” (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467] , SCC p. 468.) 17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487], only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected. 18. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 was applicable. 20 19. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. [(2004) 3 SCC 137] this Court held thus: (SCC pp. 146-47, para 15) ‘15. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.’ 20. For our purpose, clause (d) is relevant. It makes it clear that if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. For the said purpose, it is the duty of the person who files such an application to 21 satisfy the court that the plaint does not disclose how the same is in time. In order to answer the said question, it is incumbent on the part of the court to verify the entire plaint. Order 7 Rule 12 mandates where a plaint is rejected, the court has to record the order to that effect with the reasons for such order.” 8. On the same lines, this Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust [(2012) 8 SCC 706: (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612], observed as follows: (SCC pp. 713-15, paras 10-12) “10. … It is clear from the above that where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the court has no other option except to reject the same. A reading of the above provision also makes it clear that power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial. 22 11. This position was explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557], in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under: (SCC p. 560, para 9) ‘9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit — before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.’ It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the 23 averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the court to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [(2006) 3 SCC 100]. 12. It is also useful to refer the judgment in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467], wherein while considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 and the duty of the trial court in considering such application, this Court has reminded the trial Judges with the following observation: (SCC p. 470, para 5) ‘5. … 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 24 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, (Chapter XI) and must be triggered against them.’ It is clear that if the allegations are vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear right or material(s) to sue, it is the duty of the trial Judge to exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action as observed by Krishna Iyer, J. in the abovereferred decision [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467], it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the parties under Order 10 of the Code.” 14. All these events have been reiterated in Para 28 of the plaint, dealing with the cause of action for filing of the suit. Indeed, the said para opens with the expression “the cause of action to file the suit accrued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the illegal recoveries were noticed and letter dated 21-7-2000 was sent to the defendants to clarify as to how the interest was being calculated”. 25 This averment cannot be read in isolation. …. 22. It is well-established position that the cause of action for filing a suit would consist of bundle of facts. Further, the factum of the suit being barred by limitation, ordinarily, would be a mixed question of fact and law. Even for that reason, invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is ruled out. In the present case, the assertion in the plaint is that the appellant verily believed that its claim was being processed by the regional office and the regional office would be taking appropriate decision at the earliest. That belief was shaken after receipt of letter from the Senior Manager of the Bank, dated 8-5-2002 followed by another letter dated 19-9-2002 to the effect that the action taken by the Bank was in accordance with the rules and the appellant need not correspond with the Bank in that regard any further. This firm response from the respondent Bank could trigger the right of the appellant to sue the respondent Bank. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had eventually sent a legal notice on 28-11- 2003 and again on 7-1-2005 and then filed the suit on 23-2- 2005, is also invoked as giving rise to cause of action. Whether this plea taken by the appellant is genuine and legitimate, would be a mixed question of fact and law, depending on the response of the respondents.” 26 13. In this backdrop, the approach of the High Court in reversing the well- reasoned order of the trial Court warrants interference. The trial Court had rightly held that the issue of limitation necessitated adjudication upon evidence, particularly in view of the appellant’s assertion that the Power of Attorney executed by him did not confer any authority upon his father to alienate the suit property and that the impugned transaction came to his knowledge only at a much later point in time. In such circumstances, the determination of limitation involved disputed questions of fact that could not be summarily decided without the benefit of trial. The High Court, however, proceeded to reject the plaint solely on a prima facie assumption that the suit was barred by limitation, without undertaking any examination as to whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge was demonstrably false or inherently improbable in light of the record. In the opinion of this Court, such an approach amounts to an error of law and constitutes a misapplication of the well-established principles governing the exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. For the same reasons, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are inapplicable, being factually distinguishable. 14. It is also to be noted that the appellant has categorically averred in the plaint that he executed the registered power of attorney in 27 favour of his father solely for the limited purpose of constructing a house and carrying out related activities. There is no express clause authorizing his father to sell the suit property to any person without the appellant’s consent and knowledge. Yet, the appellant’s father executed a sale deed in favour of his granddaughter, going beyond the scope of the power of attorney, which raises serious doubt about misuse of authority and potential fraud. Such assertions cannot be rejected in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, we are of the view that the plaint discloses a cause of action which cannot be shut out at the threshold. Thus, the trial Court acted within its jurisdiction in refusing to reject the plaint and in holding that the matter ought to proceed to trial. The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, ought not to have interfered in the absence of any jurisdictional error or perversity in the trial court’s order. Rejecting the plaint where substantial factual disputes exist concerning limitation and the scope of authority under the Power of Attorney, is legally unsustainable.” 16. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the plaint as well as the impugned order dated 25.01.2025, this Court finds that the trial Court has correctly applied the settled principles of law. The law is well settled that at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, the Court is required to 28 look only into the averments made in the plaint and nothing beyond. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, the suit is found to be ex facie barred by law, only then rejection of the plaint would be justified. However, where the issue involves determination of disputed facts, such as accrual of cause of action or possession of property, the matter cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage. 17. In the present case, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the cause of action arose on 11.08.2024 when the defendants allegedly interfered with his possession over the suit land. It has further been averred that the plaintiff has also sought declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession in addition to specific performance and injunction. Thus, the plea of limitation cannot be conclusively determined without evidence. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Kumarakurubaran (supra), while considering the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has held that a plaint cannot be rejected as barred by limitation unless such bar is apparent from the averments contained therein. Where the issue of limitation depends upon adjudication of disputed questions of fact, the same must necessarily be left open for trial. 19. In light of the above legal position, this Court is of the view that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The order impugned does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or 29 material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. 20. Accordingly, the instant civil revision is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, and the trial Court shall proceed independently in accordance with law. There
Arguments
period. According to learned counsel, such clever drafting in the plaint cannot be permitted to defeat the mandate of law relating to limitation, nor can it create a fresh cause of action when none actually exists in the eyes of law. He contends that the law is well settled that when, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that the suit is barred by limitation, the Court is under a 6 duty to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Reliance is placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and others, (2020) 7 SCC 366, Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Others v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhosale and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844, Uma Devi and others v. Anand Kumar and Others, (2025) 5 SCC 198 and Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2020) 16 SCC 601 to contend that clever drafting cannot confer jurisdiction or revive a stale claim which is otherwise time-barred. Accordingly, the suit, being hopelessly barred by limitation, ought to have been dismissed at the threshold itself. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He contends that in the present case, issues have not yet been framed and the parties have not led their evidence, therefore, it would not be proper for the Court to record a finding on limitation without a full-fledged trial. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently held that the question of limitation, unless apparent on the face of the plaint, is required to be adjudicated only after framing of issues and recording of 7 evidence, and not at the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208 and P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 975 wherein it has been laid down that unless the plaint itself unequivocally shows that the suit is barred by limitation, rejection of plaint cannot be ordered under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents along with this civil revision as also the case laws relied upon by the respective parties. 9. From perusal of the plaint, it appears that there was no time limit in the agreement to sale. The parties were in contact with each other. The defendants have assured to the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed, however, when the land was got tried to demarcate, got first cause of action arose. Secondly, when some other person tried to remove the pillar that is to say possession of the plaintiff on 11.08.2024, the cause of action for filing suit as such from the averments of the plaint two dates which were mentioned i.e. 29.07.2024 and 11.08.2024 seems to be the dates for arrival of cause of action, as such, the averments of the plaint the suit is not liable to be dismissed. 10. Further from perusal of the impugned order dated 25.01.2025 8 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, it is apparent that the trial Court has taken into consideration the pleadings of both parties and has observed that the plaintiff has filed the suit not only for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction, but also seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. The trial Court further recorded a finding that although the defendants have raised an objection that the suit is barred by limitation in view of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, yet, from the plaint averments, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the cause of action arose only on 11.08.2024, when his possession was allegedly interfered with. The trial Court has rightly held that the question whether the suit is within limitation or time-barred cannot be decided merely on the basis of averments in the plaint, but requires adjudication on appreciation of evidence, as the same is a mixed question of law and fact. The reliance placed by the defendants on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994 AIR 853) has also been distinguished by the trial Court by observing that the factual matrix of those cases was different from the facts pleaded in the present case. Accordingly, the trial Court, upon consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the objection raised by the defendants regarding limitation cannot be 9 decided at the threshold stage and would require adjudication after framing of issues and recording of evidence. Hence, the application filed by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC was found to be devoid of merit and was rejected. 11. It is a settled proposition of law that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the plaint. Neither the defence raised by the defendants in their written statement nor the pleas taken in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be looked into at this stage. The Court must confine itself to the plaint allegations alone, and if from such averments the suit appears to be barred by law, only then the plaint can be rejected. In the present case, since the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, the plaint cannot be rejected merely on that ground. 12. The issue of limitation necessarily involves determination of facts relating to the accrual of cause of action, which requires consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The question whether the plaintiff’s claim is within limitation cannot be decided in limine, but has to be adjudicated at the stage of trial on merits after framing of issues, recording of the evidence of the parties as well as appreciation of exhibited documents. 13. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicants on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) 10 and Dahiben (supra) is concerned, the trial Court has rightly distinguished the same by holding that the factual context of those cases is materially different from the facts pleaded in the present suit. In those cases, the plaint averments themselves disclosed that the suits were barred by limitation. However, in the present matter, the plaint discloses that the cause of action allegedly arose on 11.08.2024 when interference with possession was made, which aspect requires evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. 14. Thus, in the present case, from a meaningful reading of the plaint,
Decision
shall be no order as to costs. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge