Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) Rejection of plaint — Scope — Limitation — Mixed question of law and fact — Suit for specific performance — Agreement of sale dated 15.04.2010 — Suit filed in 2025 — Plea in plaint that cause of action arose on refusal in 2025 — Whether plaint barred ex facie by limitation — Held, when plaint pleads later accrual of cause of action, issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Trial Court justified in rejecting application — However, limitation and cause of action being foundational, Trial Court directed to frame preliminary issue and decide expeditiously after permitting evidence.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d)
Rejection of plaint — Scope — Limitation — Mixed question of law and fact — Suit for specific performance — Agreement of sale dated 15.04.2010 — Suit filed in 2025 — Plea in plaint that cause of action arose on refusal in 2025 — Whether plaint barred ex facie by limitation — Held, when plaint pleads later accrual of cause of action, issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Trial Court justified in rejecting application — However, limitation and cause of action being foundational, Trial Court directed to frame preliminary issue and decide expeditiously after permitting evidence.

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54
Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation — Date fixed for performance or date of refusal — Determination dependent on pleadings and evidence — Cannot be conclusively determined at threshold where plaintiff pleads later refusal.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XIV Rule 2
Preliminary issue — Limitation — Court empowered and required to decide as preliminary issue where it goes to root of jurisdiction.

---

FACTS OF THE CASE (AS PLEADED AND RECORDED)

1. Respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance based on:

   • An alleged oral agreement dated 10.11.2009, and

   • A written agreement to sell dated 15.04.2010,
     allegedly executed by the father/husband of the present applicants.

2. Suit property comprised Khasra Nos. 235/21 and 235/22, situated at Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Plaintiff pleaded payment of:

   • ₹51,000/- as earnest money, and

   • ₹12,00,000/- in cash at the time of execution of the written agreement,
     followed by delivery of possession.

4. The executant died on 06.11.2018.

5. Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03.05.2025 and instituted the suit on 09.05.2025 / 14.05.2025, i.e., more than 15 years after the alleged agreement.

6. Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that:

   • No agreement was executed,

   • The agreement is forged,

   • The suit is ex facie barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

7. The Trial Court rejected the application on 08.10.2025, holding that the objections raised involved mixed questions of fact and law.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed the present Civil Revision.

---

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as being barred by limitation on the face of the plaint?

2. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error in holding that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law?

3. What is the proper procedural course where limitation goes to the root of the matter but is not ex facie apparent?

---

ANALYSIS AND REASONING

1. The Court reiterated the settled scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, namely that:

   • Only the averments in the plaint are to be examined;

   • Defence pleas or disputed facts cannot be considered;

   • Rejection is permissible only where the bar is ex facie apparent.

2. The Court relied extensively upon the recent authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan (2025 INSC 598), wherein it was held that:

   • Limitation ordinarily constitutes a mixed question of fact and law;

   • Where the plaint pleads a particular date of knowledge or refusal, such plea must be assumed to be true at the threshold;

   • Rejection of plaint is impermissible unless the suit is demonstrably barred on the face of the plaint itself.

3. Applying the above principles, the Court noted:

   • Though the agreement is of the year 2010, the plaintiff has pleaded that the cause of action accrued later;

   • Whether such plea is genuine or merely an attempt to overcome limitation requires evidence.

4. The Court held that:

   • The Trial Court was correct in refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC;

   • However, limitation and cause of action go to the root of the matter and cannot be left open indefinitely.

5. Consequently, the Court found it necessary to strike a procedural balance by:

   • Declining interference at the Order VII Rule 11 stage, but

   • Directing the Trial Court to frame a preliminary issue on limitation and cause of action and decide the same expeditiously after permitting evidence.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where the plaint pleads that the cause of action for specific performance accrued at a later point of time, the issue of limitation cannot be summarily adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless the suit is ex facie barred on the plaint averments themselves; however, when limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction, the Trial Court must frame and decide it as a preliminary issue after permitting evidence.

---

FINAL ORDER / DIRECTIONS

1. Civil Revision dismissed insofar as challenge to rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application.

2. Trial Court directed to:

   • Frame an appropriate preliminary issue on limitation and cause of action;

   • Permit parties to lead evidence;

   • Decide the preliminary issue strictly in accordance with law and expeditiously.

3. If the suit is ultimately found barred by limitation, appropriate orders may be passed.