Learned counsel has further referred to the judgment in the case of Dahibhen v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors

Judgment

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner defendant aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 17.12.2024 in civil suit no. 161/2023 by learned Additional District Judge no.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sanganer).

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner defendant while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that the plaintiff respondent has filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against the present petitioner defendant. He further referred the documents referred and relied by plaintiff and averment of plaintiff and submitted that plaintiff has mentioned that [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (2 of 12) [CR-2/2025] he has executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner defendant but the cheques of ₹3 crore were dishonoured and a part of sale consideration is not paid to the plaintiff. He further referred the facts narrated by plaintiff and submitted that sale deed was executed on

26.03.2015 and presented to the Sub-Registrar for registration which was registered on 10.04.2015. He also submitted that after dishonour of cheque the plaintiff has not filed any proceeding to recover ₹3 crore from the defendant but he registered a criminal case at Police Station Mansarovar and after investigation police has filed a closure report. He further submitted that all of a sudden the plaintiff has filed a suit assuming cause of action on 04.06.2023. He further submitted that the when a sale deed has been executed in March/April, 2015 and cheques were dishonoured in March/April, 2015 then if plaintiff desires to file a suit on the basis of cause of action accrued, then the period of limitation is 3 years but the suit is filed beyond period prescribed of limitation. He further submitted that at the most a sale deed can be challenged till 09.04.2018 but not thereafter. He further submitted that this suit is filed only after in 2023, nearly 8 years after sale deed. He also referred Section 17, 58 and 59 of Limitation Act and submitted that on 16.01.2017 a legal notice was served even thereafter a suit was not filed within a period of three years. He further submitted that by camouflaging the event of 2023, the instant suit is filed by the plaintiff and it does not give rise to cause of action to the plaintiff. He further submitted that if any exemption is available to the plaintiff then he should mention the exemption provided under the law and without considering the [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (3 of 12) [CR-2/2025] exemption from law of limitation, a suit cannot be maintained which is filed beyond period of limitation.

3. Learned counsel has further referred to the judgment in the case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 and submitted that a court must read the plaint in conjunction with the documents referred to in the plaint as a whole. If, upon a meaningful reading, it is found that the suit is clearly barred by limitation, then it is the duty of the court to reject the suit in order to save the precious time of the court.

4. He further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the objective behind Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which provides an independent and special remedy empowering the court to summarily dismiss a suit without resorting to recording evidence. He also referred to the judgment in the case of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association Vs. Sri Bala & Co. (Civil Appeal No. 1525/2023, order dated 08.01.2025 and submitted that if a suit is barred by the law of limitation, it should be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

5. He further submitted that the averments in the plaint clearly indicate a dispute over the payment between the parties, and a suit for recovery of money can be filed, but a suit for cancellation is not maintainable. He further submitted that the plaintiff, through clever drafting, has alleged possession over the suit property and has mentioned a threat to his possession, which give to a cause of action. He submitted that the court should not permit a person to take advantage of such clever drafting to create an illusion of a cause of [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (4 of 12) [CR-2/2025] action. Lastly, he submitted that the trial court committed a serious error by dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

6. The aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent, and submitted that the defendant, taking advantage of his influence, executed a sale deed without payment of sale consideration. He further referred the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed to it and submitted that at no point possession of the suit property ever handed over to the defendant-petitioner. He asserted that the plaintiff remained in possession and continues to be in possession as of the date of filing the suit. He also submitted that the plaintiff specifically averred the relevant facts, particularly the dishonour of cheques and continued possession over the suit property, which shows that the plaintiff remained hopeful that the dispute would be resolved. He referred to Articles 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act and submitted that when the plaintiff was threatened and the defendant attempted to dispossess in 2023, a cause of action accrued, compelling the plaintiff to file the present civil suit.

7. He further submitted that when there is a continuous cause of action and multiple issues involved, a suit cannot be rejected solely on the ground that part of the cause of action is time-barred. He contended that if the plaintiff has mentioned the cause of action and claimed limitation accordingly, any objection to limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact. He also referred to the judgment of the three-judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr. 2020 INSC 413 and submitted that, without considering the complete [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (5 of 12) [CR-2/2025] facts and without recording evidence on the issue of limitation, the plaintiff’s suit cannot be dismissed. He also referred to the judgment in Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidhyarthi and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1033.

8. Heard learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Perused the material placed on record along with the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to by both parties.

9. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that: The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed, and permanent injunction, claiming that the property mentioned in Paragraph No. 2 was sold to the defendant for a sale consideration of ₹10,00,00,000 and sale deed was executed on

26.03.2015 and registered on 10.04.2015. The defendant allegedly failed to make payment of ₹3,00,00,000/- and the cheques issued by him were dishonoured. The plaintiff lodged FIR No. 281/2017 at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur, but the police closed the matter.

10. Aggrieved by the alleged threat of dispossession by the defendant on 04.06.2023, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which was dismissed by the trial court on 17.12.2024. The only ground raised by the defendant was that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The defendant referred to Sections 17, 58, and 59 of the Limitation Act to buttress that a three-year period is prescribed for challenging a sale deed and for filing a suit for cancellation of sale deed or recovery of remaining sale consideration, which the plaintiff failed to do within the stipulated period. [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (6 of 12) [CR-2/2025]

11. Section 17 of the Limitation Act addresses the effect of fraud or mistake on the limitation period. Section 58 prescribes a three-year limitation for filing a suit seeking any declaration, commencing from when the right to sue first accrues. Section 59 provides a three-year limitation to file a suit for cancellation or setting aside of any instrument or rescission of a contract, starting from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to such relief first become known to him.

12. Order VII Rule 6 of the CPC provides that when a suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by law of limitation, the plaint must clearly state the grounds for exemption from such limitation. Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 be excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This period is to be excluded for all purposes before considering objections, relating to limitation.

13. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall 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 returned 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; [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (7 of 12) [CR-2/2025] (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; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

14. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a 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 the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code.

15. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2004) 3 SCC 137 and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation. [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (8 of 12) [CR-2/2025]

16. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 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 at any stage of the suit i.e. 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 Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

18. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (9 of 12) [CR-2/2025] one, but the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.

19. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint.

20. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law.

21. In the case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors (supra) considering the judgment in the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal 2017 (13) SCC 174, it was held that if, by clever drafting of the plaint, an illusion of a cause of action is created, then it should be nipped in the bud so that bogus litigation can be ended at the earliest stage. The court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression and must determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

22. Again, in the case of Khatri Hotels P.Ltd.& Anr vs Union Of India 2011 (9) SCC 126, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (10 of 12) [CR-2/2025] use of the word “first” between the words “sue” and “accrued” in Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act means that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. However, if there are successive violations of the same right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit would be liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation, counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued.

23. In the case of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association Vs. Sri Bala & Co. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the judgment in Shakti Bhog Foods Private Ltd. (supra) in light of Articles 113 and 54 of the Limitation Act and held that first Article 113 would apply, followed by Section 9 of the Limitation Act, which provides for continuous running of time. After considering the grounds related to limitation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the application and rejected the suit.

24. In Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr. (supra) , a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC in light of Articles 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act, held that in cases where the facts are complex, the issue of limitation becomes a mixed question of fact and law and can only be adjudicated after recording evidence.

25. In the case of Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidhyarthi and Anr. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court again considering both Shakti Bhog Private Ltd. (supra) and Dahibhen [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (11 of 12) [CR-2/2025] (supra), held that no amount of evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

26. In the present case, the averments in the plaint clearly indicate that on 10.04.2015 the cheques were dishonoured, and a criminal case was filed by the plaintiff in 2017. Although the exact date of case closure (FR) is not available on record, but it is an admitted that the police filed a closure report after investigation in FIR No. 281/2017 registered at Police Station, Mansarovar, Jaipur. The plaintiff mentioned that a legal notice regarding dishonour of cheques was issued on 16.02.2017. Now, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant attempted to dispossess him from the suit property on

04.06.2023 and, solely on this ground, he has filed the present suit.

27. The plaintiff has not claimed that there was a continuous cause of action. He has claimed that the cause of action accrued on

04.06.2023 when the defendant allegedly threatened to dispossess him and tried to take possession of the suit property. Admittedly, the cheques mentioned by the plaintiff were dishonoured, and no payment was made thereafter. The plaintiff has maintained his possession over the suit property, and no legal proceedings were initiated by the defendant to procure possession of the disputed land from the plaintiff. Herein, the cause of action is based on event of

04.06.2023 and period of limitation is counted accordingly.

28. Considering the facts as narrated in the plaint, and there is dispute regarding the applicability of the law of limitation, then it may be considered after framing of issues and recording of evidence. However, in the present case, it is not possible to conclusively [2025:RJ-JP:23112] (12 of 12) [CR-2/2025] determine that the suit is barred by the law of limitation at preliminary stage. Therefore, the trial court has rightly decided the objection raised by the present petitioner, particularly in view of the larger bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr. (supra).

29. Accordingly, the revision petition sans merit and is liable to be dismissed.

30. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed, and the order dated

17.12.2024 is hereby affirmed.

31. Misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. CHETNA BEHRANI /98-S (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J