Order VII Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint on ground of limitation — Scope of enquiry at threshold stage. For deciding rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, only plaint averments and documents filed along with plaint can be considered. If limitation involves disputed questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence, plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. — Paras 29 to 34.

advocatemmmohan

apex court held that

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint on ground of limitation — Scope of enquiry at threshold stage.

For deciding rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, only plaint averments and documents filed along with plaint can be considered. If limitation involves disputed questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence, plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.
— Paras 29 to 34.

---

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Suit for specific performance — Limitation under Article 54 of Limitation Act — Actual knowledge of refusal — Triable issue.

Where plaintiff specifically pleaded that knowledge of registered sale deeds and gift deed was acquired only in January, 2010 and suit was filed within three years thereof, the issue whether plaintiff had earlier notice or deemed notice was held to be a triable issue requiring evidence and could not be decided at the stage of registration of plaint.
— Paras 35 to 38.

---

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — “Date fixed for performance” and “notice of refusal” — Distinction explained.

The High Court reiterated that Article 54 contains two distinct limbs. Where no specific date for performance is fixed in the agreement, limitation begins from the date when plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. Such date of refusal and date of knowledge are matters requiring adjudication on evidence.
— Paras 15 to 24.

---

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 3 — Constructive/deemed notice — Registered document — Applicability at threshold stage.

The Court held that deemed notice under Section 3 and Explanation I of the Transfer of Property Act cannot automatically be imputed at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because sale deeds were registered. Whether plaintiff had actual knowledge earlier, or whether there was wilful abstention from enquiry or gross negligence, are matters requiring trial and evidence.
— Paras 25 to 28, 35 to 37.

---

Constructive notice — Wilful abstention or gross negligence — Question of fact.

The Court reiterated that constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act is ordinarily a question of fact or mixed question of fact and law dependent upon evidence and surrounding circumstances of each case.
— Paras 26 to 28.

---

Specific Performance Suit — Registration stage — Trial Court exceeded jurisdiction in rejecting plaint.

The Trial Court rejected the plaint at SR stage holding that suit ought to have been filed within three years from date of registered sale deeds and gift deed executed in 2004. The High Court held that such rejection was unsustainable since plaint specifically pleaded actual knowledge only in January, 2010 and suit filed on 08.03.2010 was prima facie within limitation.
— Paras 7, 8, 35 to 39.

---

Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Defence of defendants irrelevant at threshold stage.

At the stage of considering rejection of plaint, defence pleaded by defendants or grounds raised in written statement cannot be looked into. Plaint averments alone must be accepted as correct for deciding whether suit is barred by law.
— Paras 30 to 33.

---

Plaint — Revival after wrongful rejection — Direction to register suit.

Upon setting aside rejection order, the High Court directed revival and registration of plaint with liberty to Trial Court to decide limitation issue independently during trial uninfluenced by observations in appellate judgment.
— Paras 39 to 41.