Jain v. Preeti Jain, from the Court of
Case Details
1 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2025:CGHC:48829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 245 of 2025 1 - Preeti Jain W/o Rohit Jain Aged About 44 Years (Original Defendant), Present Add. R/o Through Ashok Bansal, Ward No. 8, Pawan Disk Road, P.O. Kantabhanji, Distt. Balangir, Odisha 767039, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Applicant ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pramila Jain W/o V.K. Jain Aged About 72 Years (Original Plaintiff), Present Add. R/o A-27, Sector-1, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Respondent) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (23.09.2025) 1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicant/defendant assailing the order dated 23.08.2025 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby, in Civil Suit No. 41A of 2024, their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) has been dismissed. 2. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:- “a) Issue a notice to the Respondent and call for the entire records pertaining to Civil Suit No. 41A/2024, titled as Pramila 2 Jain vs. Preeti Jain, from the Court of the Learned 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) for its kind perusal. b) Be pleased to allow the present Civil Revision by quashing and setting aside the impugned, illegal, and jurisdictionally flawed orderdated 23.08.2025 passed by the Learned 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in the said Civil Suit (Annexure A-1). c) Consequently, be pleased to allow the Applicant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Annexure A-3) and reject the plaint (Annexure A-2) filed by the Respondent as being manifestly barred by the law of limitation. d) And pass any other and further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the paramount interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.” 3. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the instant appeal is filed before this Hon’ble Court to rectify a grave legal error and manifest injustice committed by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in an order dated 23.08.2025, whereby the learned court erroneously declined to dismiss a suit that was clearly barred by the law
Legal Reasoning
of limitation. The suit, instituted by the Respondent/Plaintiff (the applicant’s mother-in-law) on 30.04.2024, seeks cancellation of a registered Gift Deed dated 11.09.2009, after an unexplained delay of nearly fifteen years. The Applicant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is palpably barred by limitation under Article 59 read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing a three-year limitation period. However, 3 the learned trial court, misled by the plaint’s elaborate averments of a recently discovered “fraud,” erroneously held that limitation involves a mixed question of fact and law requiring full trial, thereby refusing to reject the suit at the threshold. This decision is contrary to the settled legal position that where a plaint is on its face barred by limitation, it is the court’s duty to dismiss it summarily to prevent abuse of its process. This appeal thus seeks to set aside the impugned order and to quash the time-barred plaint to uphold the sanctity of the limitation law and protect the Applicant from unnecessary harassment. 4. The parties shall be referred to in their respective positions as before the Trial Court.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is manifestly erroneous, legally unsustainable, and suffers from a patent jurisdictional error, as the learned trial court failed to exercise its statutory duty to reject a plaint that is clearly barred by limitation on its face. The court wrongly held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, ignoring that the plaint itself, read with the relied-upon documents, conclusively shows the suit is time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three- year limitation period from the date of execution of the registered Gift Deed on 11.09.2009. Despite this, the suit was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly fifteen years, with no plausible explanation for the delay or valid cause of action arising only recently, and the purported claim of “fraud” is vague, unparticularized, and insufficient to revive a long-dead 4 claim. The learned court was misled by the Respondent’s “clever drafting,” contrary to settled Supreme Court precedents which mandate that such vexatious and meritless suits be summarily dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC to prevent abuse of the court’s process. Moreover, the gift deed was duly executed and accepted, rendering the transaction irrevocable under established property law principles. Allowing this belated suit to proceed causes undue hardship and harassment to the Applicant, who is already embroiled in matrimonial disputes, and thus, this Hon’ble Court’s intervention is essential to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice by setting aside the impugned order. 6. To strengthen his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court