The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 373 OF 2025 (IO-) BETWEEN: 1. PADMA W/O LATE THYAGRAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. JAGADEESH S/O LATE THYAGRAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. MAHESH S/O LATE THYAGRAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 287, JAGADISHNAGAR NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 075. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAHUL S.REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N.VINOD S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT G.M.PALYA, BYRASANDRA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU. 2. DHANALAKSMI W/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. PRAVEEN S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 RESIDING AT NO. 172/126 G.M.PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 075. 4. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SOONAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO. 109/1, G.M.PALYA NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 075. 5. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT THINDALU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU. 6. D.CHANDRA BABU S/O NARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO. 60, 1ST MAIN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR 4TH CROSS, JAGADISHNAGAR NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU. 7. KONDAIAH S/O MALAKONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.M-141, NELLURPURAM NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 075. 8. S.N.SREENVASAN MURTHY S/O S.NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO. A-81/1, JEEVAN BHIMANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 075. 9. M.R.VITTAL KUMAR S/O M.RADHAKRISHNAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.1, ANANDA NILAYA YARSAIAHNAPALYA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR DOORAVANINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 006. 10. VAIDEHI W/O S.G.SAMPATH IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. NB-PO-1047/17C VIDYARANAYAPURA MYSORE - 560 016. 11. M.V.SUVARNA W/O M.R.VITTAL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT YARAIAHNAPALYA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 016. 12. M.CLARA W/O R.ANTHONY DASS AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO. 28, 4TH CROSS JAGADISHNAGAR NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 075. 13. R.PADMAMA W/O SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO. 402, NELLAREPURAM NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 075. 14. P.R.MUNIRAJ S/O P.T.RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. 147, 4TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD JAGADISHNAGAR, NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 075. 15. S.KANDHAN S/O N.SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO. 889, 'C' STREET 11TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN HOYSALANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 075. 16. R.PADMANABHAN S/O RAJANGAM PILLAI - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. 20, 10TH CROSS 2ND BLOCK, AKSHAYANAGAR RAMMURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 016. 17. R.VENKTASWAMY S/O V.RAMESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.33, MUNESHWARA NILAYA 5TH CROSS, OLD UCO BANK ROAD RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 016. 18. E.NANDAKUMAR S/O ELUMALAI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 19. E.DHANDAPANI S/O ELUMALAI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESPONDENT 18 AND 19 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 416(36/1) GOWDANAPALYA, 8TH CROSS SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 061. 20. J.KOTTEESWARAN S/O KAYASEELAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 21. KUBENDIRAN S/O JAYASEELAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR RESPONDENT NOS. 20 AND 21 ARE RESIDING AT NO.21, 2ND MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, SUBRAMANI LAYOUT VIJINAPURA, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 016. 22. M.R.VITAL KUMAR
Legal Reasoning
S/O MR. RADHAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 23. M.V.SUVARANA W/O M.R.VITTAL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.22 AND 23 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1, ANANDA NILAYA YERAIHNAPALYA, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 016. 24. VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.333, NELLURUPURAM NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 075. 25. M.MADHESHWARAN S/O K.MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 26. N.VIJAYA W/O M.MADHESWARAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR RESPONDENT NO.25 AND 26 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 458/D 10TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN JAGADISHNAGAR, NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 075. 27. T.THIRUPATHAIAH S/O KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO. 403, NELLURUPURAM NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 075. 28. KANNAN S/O KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 13TH CROSS, JAGADISHNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 075. 29. DEBJYOTI CHOWDHURI S/O TAPAN KUMAR CHOWDHRI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. 285, 1ST MAIN JAGADISHNAGAR NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.VI IN OS NO.938/2021 ON THE FILE OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE IA - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR NO.VI FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - defendants in O.S.No.938/2021 is before this Court calling in question the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short). 2. Heard Shri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for Shri Rahul S. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M.B. Chandrachooda learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The first respondent - plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.938/2021 against the petitioners seeking a declaration to declare that the registered partition deed dated 29.08.2025 is now binding on the plaintiff and further seeks partition in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR respect of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners enter appearance and file their written statement stating that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. After filing of the written statement, file an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the score that it is barred by limitation. The said application comes to be rejected. The rejection of which is called in question before this Court in the subject petition. 4. Shri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel takes this Court through the plaint averments to contend that there is no cause of action to have instituted the said suit in the light of the registered partition having come about long ago in terms of O.S.Nos.7398/1995 and 339/2012, which had ended in compromise. He would submit that the application ought to have been allowed, as the plaintiff has no right to seek partition of the property, which stood complete long ago. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - plaintiff would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the concerned Court as on cogent reasons rejected the application seeking rejection of the plaint. He - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR would submit that the concerned Court clearly notices that for consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, what is to be looked into is the plaint averment. The plaint averments in the case at hand does disclose a cause of action. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have pursued the available material on record. 7. The suit being for the aforesaid relief is a matter of record. the petitioners - defendant file application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The concerned Court rejects the application by the following order: "16. Having regard to the Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the documents filed along with the plaint are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. When a document referred to in the plaint forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 17. I would like to refer the decision reported in 2020 (7) Supreme Court cases, 366 in cases of Dahiben Vs - Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), Dead through Legal Representatives and others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 23.2 that: is an "The remedy under Order 7 Rule independent and special 11 remedy, wherein is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit Court the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision." The ratio mentioned in the above dictum is also applicable to the case in hand. Hence, this Court has to see the plaint averments and documents attached with the plaint and none other. 18. On perusal of the plaint and plaint documents, this Court did not find any reasons to reject the plaint as per the application filed by the defendant No.1 to 3. This Issue involves mixture of facts and laws which should be decided after evidence and on deciding merits of the case and documents produced by both the parties. The defendant No.1 to 3 has not made out grounds to allow J.A.No.VI. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 19. POINT NO.2: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER I.A.No.VI filed U/O.VII Rule 11(d) R/w/Sec.151 of CPC by the defendant No.1 to 3 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." The concerned Court rejects the application on the ground that the plaint discloses bundle of facts, which are all to be tried in evidence. There is no warrant to summarily dismiss the suit without recording evidence. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR 8. The Apex Court in the case of P. KUMARAKURUBARAN Vs. P. NARAYANAN, reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 975, has held as follows: 12. In the present case, the appellant has specifically averred in the plaint that upon becoming aware of registration of documents allegedly carried out among the defendants in relation to the suit property, he immediately approached the Additional Commissioner of Police, Chennai and lodged a land grabbing complaint on 09.12.2011 against the family of Defendant No. 1. Subsequently, he applied for patta in his favour on 24.02.2012, and raised objections on 05.03.2012 to Defendant No. 4 stating that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and that no registration concerning the same should be carried out. He has also submitted an objection petition to Defendant No. 5 requesting that no planning permit be granted to anybody except the appellant in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, the appellant instituted the suit on 03.12.2014 seeking a declaration and consequential reliefs. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants stated in their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that the appellant had knowledge of the execution of the sale deed by his father in favour of Defendant No. 1 at the earliest point of time and hence, the suit instituted by the appellant was barred by limitation. While the trial Court rejected the said application holding that the issue of limitation involved a mixed question of law and fact, the High Court in revision, took a contrary view and allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint solely on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. 12.1. However, we are of the considered view that the issue as to whether the appellant had prior notice or reason to be aware of the transaction at an earlier point of time, or whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge is credible, are matters that necessarily require appreciation of evidence. At this preliminary - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR 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. (Emphasis supplied) 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 be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC: (i) Daliben Valjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai7 that “10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion 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. in 12. Further, 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 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR this Court specifically held limitation, that limitation in all such cases will arise from date of knowledge. The relevant portion is as follows: in issue “15. What is relevant for answering the matter 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 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 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR 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. … (Emphasis supplied) 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 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 is of judgment unsustainable.” Court High the (Emphasis supplied) - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR (ii) Salim D. Agboatwala v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar8 Raj Therefore, “11. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Neeradha Reddy v. P. 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. conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and 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 of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11. the it (Emphasis supplied) Thakkar [(2018) 12. Again as pointed out by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai 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. 6 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 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.” (Emphasis supplied) (iii) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India9 “6. The central question is : whether the plaint as filed by the appellant could have 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 Kumar Gupta [(2007) 10 SCC 59]. In paras 13 to 20, the Court observed as follows : (SCC pp. 65-66) Gupta v. Rajiv Prakash “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; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR (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 the germane; defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.…’ (SCC p. 560, para 9). the pleas taken by (Emphasis supplied) 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 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 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.) (Emphasis supplied) 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. 19. In Sopan Sable v. Charity Commr. [(2004) 3 SCC 137] this Court held thus : (SCC pp. 146-47, para 15) Sukhdeo be ‘15. There cannot 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 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR 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. 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 that stage, would be wholly 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.’ irrelevant at 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 averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the court to scrutinise the in the plaint. In other averments/pleas words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:22475 CRP No. 373 of 2025 HC-KAR