Supreme Court on Rejection of Plaint being barred by Limitation – Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC

Chhotanben And Another v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Others – 

A Case Analysis (Original Text here)

Facts

The Appellants filed a Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction against the Respondents on 18.10.2013. According to the Appellants, the Appellants and the original Defendants No. 1 and 2 (Predecessors of Respondents No. 2 to 15) were in joint ownership and possession of an ancestral property. Even in the record of rights, the names of Appellants and Original Defendants No. 1 and 2 were jointly recorded. Subsequently, in the year 1996, behind the back of the Appellants, the Original Defendants No. 1 and 2 transferred the said ancestral property to third party vide Sale Deed dated 18.10.1996 after forging the Signatures/Thumb Impressions of the Appellants in the said Sale Deed.

The Appellants gathered knowledge about the existence of Sale Deed dated 18.10.1996 in the year 2013 and thereafter they promptly took all the necessary actions culminating into filing of the Civil Suit and praying inter alia for Declaration that the Sale Deed dated 18.10.1996 be declared forged and null and void.

During the course of the Trial, the Appellants moved an Application for direction to the Defendants/Respondents to produce before the Court, the Original Sale Deed dated 18.10.1996 and to obtain the admitted thumb-impressions of the Appellants and send it for scientific examination. The Respondents/Defendants objected to the same and furnished their reply. However, the Trial Court allowed such Application and directed the Defendants to produce the Original Sale Deed and also directed the Thumb-Impression Expert to take necessary action and submit his report.

In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 1 (Defendant No. 5) preferred an Application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’) for rejection of the Plaint on the ground that the Suit was barred by limitation/time having been filed after a lapse of 17 years. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said Application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC on the ground that the factum of Suit being barred by limitation was a triable issue, considering the averments in the Plaint.

Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent No. 1 moved a Revision Application before the High Court under Section 115 of CPC against dismissal of Application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. The High Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court on the finding that the suit was barred by limitation. According to the High Court, the Appellants themselves affixed their signatures/thumb impressions on the Sale Deed and now they are challenging the same in the year 2013 after a lapse of 17 years. Further, it was held that that revenue entries have also mutated soon after the execution of the Sale Deed and thus, in absence of any substantiating documents, the Appellants/Plaintiff have failed to explain the delay in filing of the Suit. Thus, the Appellants were constrained to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Issue Involved

Whether the Suit was barred by limitation having been filed after a lapse of 17 years?

Held

1. In order to decide an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only the contents of the Plaint are to be seen. The Written Statement or any other Application cannot be considered while deciding an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

2. The limitation to challenge any Sale Deed usually accrues from the date on which such Sale Deed was registered. However, it is the specific case of the Appellants that until 2013, they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of Sale Deed in the year 1996. When they realized the fraud played on them by the Defendants regarding execution of Sale Deed and forged signatures/thumb impressions, they had no option but to move the Court of Law.

3. Thus, the issue regarding the Suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present is a triable issue and for such reason, the Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Opinion and Conclusion

There is nothing new about this Judgment. However, the approach adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court definitely looks progressive. It is a settled principle of law that while deciding any Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments of the Plaint are to be seen. The Court is not required to look beyond the contents of the Plaint. In the instant case, the High Court travelled beyond the contents of the Plaint and erroneously concluded that since the Appellants/Plaintiff have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions on the Sale Deed dated 18.10.1996, they cannot challenge the same after 17 years. The High Court failed to consider the fact it is the very existence and genuineness of signatures/thumb-impressions which is being challenged by the Appellants/Plaintiffs in their Plaint. Whether this averment made by the Plaintiff/Appellants regarding genuineness of signatures/thumb-impressions is correct or not can only be decided after framing of issues and leading of evidence by both the parties. Thus, in the instant case, the issue of Plaint being barred by time is clearly a mixed question of fact and law. And any mixed question of fact and law is a triable issue which cannot be decided at a preliminary stage. Appropriate issues in this respect shall have to be framed by the Trial Court and in such light, the evidence shall have to be led by the parties. It is only after such steps; the Trial Court would be in a position to decide whether the Plaint is barred by limitation or not and which of the Articles of the Schedule appended to Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable in the present case.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has subtly pointed out that one or many of the following Articles of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be applicable in the present case.

S. No.	Description of Suit	Period of Limitation	Time from which Period beings to run
Article 56	To declare the forgery of an instrument issued or registered.	Three Years	When the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff.
Article 58	To obtain any other declaration.	Three Years	When the right to sue first accrues.
Article 59	To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract.	Three Years	When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first becomes known to him.
Article 65	For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title.	Twelve Years	When the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
Article 110	By a person excluded from a joint-family property to enforce a right to share therein.	Twelve Years	When the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff.

Depending upon the evidence led by the parties, it is clear that any of the abovementioned Articles of Limitation Act, 1963 may become applicable to the facts of the present case.

Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that while deciding an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only the contents of the Plaints are to be seen. But many times, the Courts below forget this principle of law and take into consideration documents and facts which are beyond the averments made in the Plaint. A bare perusal of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC would be relevant here.

“11. 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 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;

(f) where the plaintiff fails 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 papers 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 from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, 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.”

A bare perusal of clause (d) would indicate that a Plaint is liable to be rejected where the Suit “appears from the statements in the Plaint” to be barred by any law. Thus, the bare provision is in itself indicative of the fact that only the contents of the Plaint are to be seen. The provision itself does not mandate for looking into any other document for deciding the issue of rejection of Plaint.