Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Limitation — Scope of enquiry at threshold stage.
For deciding rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, Court must confine itself only to plaint averments and documents filed along with plaint. If on meaningful reading of plaint, suit is ex facie barred by law, plaint can be rejected. However, where determination of limitation involves disputed questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence, plaint cannot be rejected at threshold.
— Paras 29 to 33.
Specific Relief — Suit for specific performance — Limitation under Article 54 of Limitation Act — Actual knowledge of refusal — Triable issue.
Where plaintiff specifically pleaded that he acquired knowledge of registered sale deeds and gift deed executed behind his back only in January, 2010 and suit was filed within three years thereof, question whether plaintiff had earlier knowledge or deemed notice was held to be a triable issue requiring evidence and not a ground for rejection of plaint at registration stage.
— Paras 4, 5, 9, 35 & 36.
Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963 — Two limbs explained.
The Division Bench reiterated that Article 54 of Limitation Act contains two distinct parts:
(i) where a date is fixed for performance, limitation runs from such fixed date;
(ii) where no date is fixed, limitation commences when plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.
The expression “date fixed for performance” denotes a definite and crystallized calendar date.
— Paras 15 to 24.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 3 — Constructive notice — Registration of document — Mixed question of fact and law.
Constructive notice under Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act cannot automatically be imputed merely because document is registered. To attribute deemed notice, Court must determine whether party would have known fact but for wilful abstention from enquiry/search or gross negligence. Such determination ordinarily requires evidence and trial.
— Paras 25 to 28 & 36 to 37.
Registered documents — Deemed notice — Cannot override specific plea of actual knowledge at threshold stage.
Where plaint specifically disclosed date of actual knowledge of registered sale deeds/gift deed, Court held that deemed notice from date of registration under Explanation I to Section 3 T.P. Act could not be invoked at preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without evidence disproving plaintiff’s plea regarding actual knowledge.
— Paras 31 to 38.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Drastic power — Strict compliance necessary.
Power to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC being drastic in nature, conditions prescribed therein must be strictly satisfied. Sham litigation alone can be terminated at threshold; where adjudication requires evidence, suit must proceed to trial.
— Paras 30 & 31.
Specific Performance — Refusal of performance — Reply notice — Relevant date for limitation.
Where plaint averments disclosed that plaintiff issued legal notice calling upon defendants to execute sale deed and refusal emerged through reply notice, such refusal constituted relevant point of time for computation of limitation under second limb of Article 54, and not necessarily date of registration of alienation deeds executed inter se family members.
— Paras 9, 35 & 38.
Registration of document — Notice to world — Rebuttable presumption.
Though registration of document ordinarily constitutes notice to world, such presumption is rebuttable. Person alleging later actual knowledge may establish same by evidence during trial.
— Paras 32, 36 & 37.
Limitation — Mixed question of law and fact — Cannot ordinarily be decided without evidence.
Court reiterated that when plea of limitation depends upon determination of actual knowledge, deemed notice, refusal of performance or surrounding circumstances, issue becomes mixed question of law and fact and requires full-fledged trial.
— Paras 31 to 38.
Appellate Court — Rejection of plaint set aside — Direction to register suit.
The Division Bench allowed appeal, set aside order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and directed revival and registration of suit, leaving all questions relating to limitation open for adjudication during trial.
— Paras 39 to 41.
No comments:
Post a Comment