Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Rejection of plaint on ground of limitation — Scope of enquiry — Only plaint averments and documents filed therewith to be considered — Defence plea irrelevant. (Paras 18–20, 31–33, 46(i)–(iii))
The petitioners/defendants sought rejection of the plaint in O.S. No. 230 of 2021 contending that the suit for declaration was barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act since title had allegedly been denied in written statement filed in earlier suit O.S. No. 1492 of 2005.
The High Court held that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, the Court is confined strictly to the averments in the plaint and the documents filed along with it. Written statement of the defendant or defence material cannot be looked into. Rejection is permissible only when the bar of limitation is apparent ex facie from the plaint itself.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC only when, from the plaint averments alone, the suit is clearly barred by law; disputed questions regarding accrual of cause of action render limitation a mixed question of law and fact, impermissible for summary rejection.
Article 58 of the Limitation Act — “When the right to sue first accrues” — Determination of first cause of action — Disputed date — Mixed question of law and fact. (Paras 21–31, 46(iv)–(vii))
Article 58 prescribes three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. The defendants contended that first accrual occurred in 2005 when title was allegedly denied in earlier written statement. The plaintiff pleaded accrual on 18.10.2021 due to hostile interference and attempt to trespass.
The Court held that where the date of first accrual of cause of action is itself disputed and requires adjudication, limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact. Unless the plaint itself admits a date which makes the suit barred, rejection at threshold is impermissible.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 58, limitation runs from the first accrual of the right to sue; however, where such first accrual is contested and requires evidentiary determination, the plaint cannot be rejected at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.
Denial of title in earlier proceedings — Whether constitutes first accrual under Article 58 — Requirement of clear and unequivocal denial. (Paras 39–42)
The defendants relied upon certain extracts from the earlier judgment to contend that plaintiff’s title was denied in 2005. The Court examined the extract and held that the plea was that plaintiff’s vendor’s vendor had no exclusive right. Such plea did not amount to clear and complete denial of plaintiff’s title.
The Court distinguished precedents where there was unmistakable and categorical denial of title.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Article 58, only a clear and unequivocal denial of title can trigger first accrual of right to sue for declaration; a plea questioning exclusive ownership does not necessarily amount to total denial of title.
Limitation in suits for declaration with consequential relief — Article 58 vis-à-vis Article 65 — Open question. (Paras 48–50)
The Court clarified that the present suit was for declaration of title with consequential injunction. It observed that in cases where declaration is ancillary to recovery of possession, limitation may be governed by Article 65 (twelve years) and not Article 58.
However, since arguments were advanced only under Article 58, the Court confined its determination accordingly, leaving broader limitation question open for trial.
Ratio Decidendi: In suits for declaration coupled with consequential relief, the governing Article for limitation may depend upon the substantive relief claimed; the issue remains open for determination at trial.
Final Disposition
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed at the admission stage. The order dated 10.12.2025 of the XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam rejecting I.A. No. 474 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was upheld. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment