The Supreme Courtroom has held {that a} plaint might be rejected on the threshold stage if the pleadings make it evident that the plaint is barred by limitation.
“…the Courtroom can’t be hesitant in granting aid of rejection of a plaint when it’s so apparent from the pleadings itself.”, noticed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Okay Vinod Chandran.
The Courtroom mentioned that whereas limitation is mostly a combined query of truth and legislation which requires adjudication in trial, nonetheless, the place the info concerning the plaint being barred by limitation are evident from the plaint averments themselves, the court docket should train its energy below Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Process, 1908 to reject the plaint on the threshold stage with out ready for a trial.
The case arose from a Joint Enterprise Settlement entered into on August 18, 2014, between the appellant (landowner) and the respondent (developer). The respondent was to assemble eight flats on two plots owned by the appellant. Upon completion, 56% of the tremendous built-up space was to go to the landowners, and the remaining 44% was to be conceded to the developer.
The appellant cancelled the Joint Enterprise Settlement on April 20, 2016, alleging that development was not accomplished throughout the stipulated 15 months. This was adopted by a lawyer’s discover on July 22, 2016. The respondent replied on July 23, 2016, resisting the cancellation.
The events exchanged additional communications, and in June 2017, the appellant took possession of the properties.
The respondent filed the swimsuit for particular aid for division and allotment of 44% share in October 2022, greater than six years after the primary communication cancelling the settlement.
The Appellant-defendant sought rejection of the plaint below Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on grounds of limitation.
The trial court docket and Excessive Courtroom rejected the defendant’s software, following which an enchantment was filed earlier than the Supreme Courtroom.
Setting apart the impugned orders, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran, referring to the plaint averments, noticed that for the reason that plaint was ex facie barred by limitation, the courts beneath erred in rejecting the Appellant’s Order VII Rule 11 CPC software.
The Courtroom reiterated the legislation laid down in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041, to carry that “when an software to reject the plaint is filed, the averments within the plaint and the paperwork annexed therewith alone are germane”, with out requiring the court docket to delve into different supplies on report.
Making use of the legislation, the Courtroom examined Paragraph 17 of the plaint, the place the plaintiff itself had asserted the reason for motion. The extract confirmed that the reason for motion arose on April 20, 2016 i.e., the primary communication cancelling the Joint Enterprise Settlement. Because the plaint was filed past the three-year limitation prescribed for searching for a share in property based mostly on a contract, the Courtroom rejected the plaint
“The reason for motion, as seen from the above, in keeping with us, arose on the primary communication cancelling the Joint Enterprise Settlement dated 20.04.2016…The swimsuit was filed in October 2022, grossly delayed from 12 months 2016 itself; even 22.11.2016, the final however one of many dates within the above extract.”, the Courtroom noticed.
“We discover completely no purpose to maintain the order of the Trial Courtroom and the Excessive Courtroom and we put aside the identical…The plaint filed in O.S. No.632 of 2022 between the events pending in Extra District and Periods Choose, Chengalpattu, shall stand rejected.”, the court docket held.
In consequence, the enchantment was allowed.
Trigger Title: N Asha Devi Versus R Aravind Kumar & Anr.
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 849
