7.7 Even the averments and allegations with respect to knowledge of the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said to be too vague. Nothing has been mentioned on which date and how the plaintiffs had the knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/or misrepresentation. It is averred that the alleged fraudulent sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. Nothing has been mentioned when the plaintiffs visited the suit
property. It is not understandable how on visiting the suit property, the plaintiffs could have known the contents of the sale deed and/or the knowledge about the alleged fraudulent sale.
7.8 Even the averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations how the fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation. Therefore, even if the submission
on behalf of the respondents – original plaintiffs that only the averments and allegations in the plaints are required to be considered at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is accepted, in that case also by such vague allegations with respect to the date of knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the documents after a period of 10 years. By such a clever drafting and using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation Act. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2022
C.S. Ramaswamy Vs V.K. Senthil & Ors.
Author: M.R. SHAH, J.
Dated: SEPTEMBER 30, 2022.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
respective C.R.P. Nos. 1931, 1921, 1973, 1968, 1975, 1976 and 1922 of
2019 by which the High Court has dismissed the said civil revision
petitions and has confirmed the orders passed by the learned Trial Court
rejecting the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) to reject the respective
plaints filed by the appellant herein – original defendant, who has
preferred the present appeals.
2. That the respondents herein – original plaintiffs have filed the
respective suits before the learned Trial Court for cancellation of the sale
deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the appellant – original
defendant as null and void and also to declare that the plaintiffs are the
absolute owners of the suit schedule property and consequently restrain
the defendant from in any manner alienating the suit schedule property.
2.1 Having been served with summons of the suit, the original
defendant – appellant herein filed applications before the learned Trial
Court to reject the respective plaints in exercise of powers under Order
VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC mainly on the ground that the respective suits
were clearly barred by the law of limitation. The said applications were
resisted by the plaintiffs by submitting that the Sale Deeds dated
12.09.2005, 19.09.2005, 22.09.2005, 29.09.2005 and 30.09.2005 for
which the relief to cancel the same has been prayed in the suit was
obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation and it was obtained by fraud.
According to the plaintiffs, by fraudulent misrepresentation of the
character of the document, i.e., as if it is a Joint Development Project,
the defendant got the sale deeds and the plaintiffs without knowing the
contents of the documents have executed the said deeds. According to
the plaintiffs, they came to know about the same only in April, 2015 and
immediately thereafter they had filed the present suits.
2.2 The learned Trial Court dismissed the applications under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC by observing that the issue of limitation is a mixed question
of law and facts and therefore, the respective prayers are not required to
be rejected at this stage in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule
11(d) of the C.P.C.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the
learned Trial Court rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d)
CPC and refusing to reject the plaints, the defendant filed the revision
petitions before the High court.
2.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
dismissed the said civil revision petitions, which has given rise to the
present appeals at the instance of the original defendant.
3. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf
of the appellant – original defendant and Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned
Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents
– original plaintiffs.
4. Shri Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant – original defendant has vehemently submitted that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, both, the learned Trial Court as well as
the High Court have erred in not allowing the applications under Order
VII Rule 11(d) CPC and in not rejecting the respective plaints as the
same were barred by limitation. It is vehemently submitted that in the
present case, the sale deeds, which are now sought to be cancelled
were executed in the year 2005 and the sale consideration was paid by
demand drafts and the same were credited into the bank accounts of the
plaintiffs. It is submitted that the said sale deeds are registered sale
deeds. It is submitted that the suits have been filed in the year 2016,
i.e., after a lapse of more than 10 years and so the said suits are clearly
barred by the law of limitation. The learned Trial Court ought to have
rejected the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d)
CPC.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sibal, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant – original defendant that even on
bare looking on the averments in the plaint and there are vague
averments with respect to the date of knowledge of the alleged fraud
and the documents and the respective suits have been filed after a
period of 10 years from the date of execution, which is a fit case to
exercise the powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It is vehemently
submitted that merely by making some vague averments with respect to
fraud, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the
period of limitation. It is submitted that there must be specific allegations
and averments in the suit, how the fraud has been committed. It is
submitted that mere stating in the plaint that the registered sale deeds
were executed by playing the fraud is not sufficient to file the suits after a
period of 10 years.
4.2 Shri Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant has vehemently submitted that in the present case, with
respect to the very sale deeds, earlier a suit was filed by the minor to
which some of the original plaintiffs were also parties and the said suits
came to be dismissed in the year 2014. It is submitted that immediately
thereafter the present suits were filed in the year 2015/2016. It is
submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were not
having the knowledge of the nature of the respective sale deeds and/or
the contents of the sale deeds.
4.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna
Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2020) 16 SCC 601, it is
prayed to allow the present revision petitions and consequently allow the
application submitted by the appellant – original defendant and to reject
the respective plaints in exercise of the powers under Order VII Rule
11(d) of the CPC.
5. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Sushil Kumar
Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents - original plaintiffs.
5.1 It is submitted that there is specific cause of action pleaded in the
respective plaints and there are allegations of fraud and it is the case on
behalf of the plaintiffs that the sale deeds/documents are the result of
fraud and sham and from the date of knowledge in the year 2015
thereafter immediately the respective suits were filed, it cannot be said
that the respective suits are barred by limitation.
5.2 It is submitted that as rightly observed and held by the Trial Court
as well as the High Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the issue with respect to limitation is a mixed question of law and facts
and therefore, such an issue of limitation is required to be considered at
the time of trial, no error has been committed by the learned Trial Court
and/or the High Court in refusing to reject the plaints in exercise of
powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
5.3 It is submitted that as per the settled position of law, while
considering and/or deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, only the averments and allegations in the plaint are required to be
considered. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case
of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity
Commissioner & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137; Srihari Hanumandas
Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 99; and Ram
Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 59.
5.4 It is submitted that as held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of
Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable
Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706, the
cause of action is bundle of facts where all the events are required to be
pleaded. It is submitted that therefore on considering the necessary
averments in the plaint disclosing the cause of action and considering
the averments and allegations in the entire plaint, it cannot be said that
the suits are barred by limitation.
5.5 It is submitted that in the plaint, it is specifically averred that the
plaintiffs came to know about the contents of the sale deeds only in the
year 2015 and having come to know in the year 2015 that the Sale
Deeds were got executed by the defendant by fraud and
misrepresentation as the plaintiffs had signed the said documents
believing the same as Joint Development Agreement and therefore, it
cannot be said that the suits are clearly barred by the law of limitation.
5.6 It is submitted that the question of limitation is a mixed question of
fact and law. It is submitted that in the present matter, the plaintiffs are
required to prove during the trial that the facts so alleged in paras 11-19,
if those facts are established, then the plaintiffs are entitled to benefit of
Section 17 of the Limitation Act.
5.7 It is submitted that considering Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the
period of limitation shall begin to run only from the date of discovery of
such fraud. It is submitted that as per the averments and allegations in
the plaints, the plaintiffs came to know about the fraud in the year 2015
and therefore, considering Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the suits
cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on the
decision of this Court in the case of Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. Vs.
Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 735.
5.8 Shri Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents - original plaintiffs vehemently submitted that in the present
case, defendant himself filed the writ petition in the name of the plaintiffs
and even in the names of the dead owners, which shows that the
plaintiffs not only got the sale deeds executed in the name of Joint
Venture Agreement but even got the blank documents, which were taken
and used for filing the writ petitions.
5.9 Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions,
it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.
6. Heard the learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
7. We have gone through in detail the averments and allegations in
the plaints.
7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by filing the respective
suits, the original plaintiffs have prayed to cancel the registered Sale
Deeds, which were executed by the original plaintiffs. The respective
suits have been filed in the year 2015/2016, i.e., after a period of 10
years from the date of execution of such registered sale deeds.
Therefore, the defendant filed the applications and prayed to reject the
respective plaints in exercise of the powers under Order VII Rule 11(d)
CPC on the ground that the suits are clearly barred by the law of
limitation. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that
as the sale deeds/documents were got executed by fraud and
misrepresentation and the plaintiffs signed the said documents believing
or treating it as Joint Venture Agreement and the plaintiffs did not go
through the contents of the said documents and as in the year 2015, the
plaintiffs came to know about such fraud and obtaining the
documents/sale deeds by misrepresentation, considering Section 17 of
the Limitation Act, the said suits cannot be said to be barred by
limitation. It is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that in any case, the
question of limitation being a mixed question of law and facts, and,
therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaints may not
be rejected in exercise of the powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It
is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that while considering the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the allegations and averments
in the plaints are required to be considered.
7.2 While considering the issue/question whether the plaints filed by
the plaintiffs are required to be rejected on the ground of limitation in
exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, the cause of action
pleaded in the plaints is required to be referred to, which reads as
under:-
“21. The cause of action for the suit arose on 19.09.2005
the date on which the plaintiffs executed the sale
deed in favour of the defendant registered as
document No. 3555/2005, on 20.09.1983 the date
when Government of Tamil Nadu issued Sec. 4 (1)
notice of Land Acquisition Act in respect of the
plaintiff's lands, on 20.09.1983 the date when after
Section 4(1) notification the Government of Tamil
Nadu a declaration under Section 6 was issued in
11
G.O. No. 1426 by the Housing and Urban
Development Department, on subsequent dates
when land acquisition proceedings were initiated by
the Government of Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition in
W.P. No. 4079 of 1989 against the plaintiff and other
land owners, on 07. 07 .1989 the date when the stay
order in WMP No. 5983 of 1989 was given, on
07.01.1994 the date when stay order was vacated,
on 01.04.1998 the date when the plaintiffs filed a writ
appeal questioning the said order in W.A. No. 258 of
1994, on 01.04.1998 the date when High Court
quashed the entire acquisition proceedings under the
old land acquisition act, on subsequent dates when
the housing board has filed SLP (C) No. 13458 to
13462 of 1998 which was subsequently withdrawn
with liberty to approach the Honorable High Court of
Madras by filing the review petition, on subsequent
date when the housing board filed a review petition
before the High Court in Review No. 68 of 1999
seeking to review the order dated 01.04.1998 passed
in WA No. 258 of 1994 and W.P. No. 4079 of 1989,
on 04.10.2007 the date when the review petition was
allowed thereby setting aside the order dated
01.04.1998, on 05.01.2009 the date when the M.P. 1
of 2008 was dismissed by the High Court Division
Bench, on 09.07.2012 the date when the petitioners
in writ petition preferred a SLP (C) No. 15932 and
15933 of 2020 before Supreme Court and an order of
status quo was granted and the same is pending on
23.06.2014 the date when the defendant obtained a
fraudulent decree by filing a writ petition before High
Court Madras under new land acquisition act, on
04.04.2015 the date when the plaintiff wrote letter to
advocate who alleged to have represented on behalf
of the plaintiff, on 19.04.2015 the date when the
plaintiff received the reply admitting that plaintiffs and
other land owners, during the month of November
when the plaintiffs came to know about the fraudulent
12
sale and on all other subsequent where the suit
properties are satiated within the jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court at Coimbatore.“
7.3 In paragraph 19, the plaintiffs have made averments with respect
to the date of knowledge. Paragraph 19 reads as under:-
““19. The plaintiffs humbly submit that the plaintiffs and
other land owners have not sold the properties to the
defendant at all. They did not receive any
consideration from the defendant at all they did not
hand over any possession also and the alleged
fraudulent sale came to the knowledge of the
plaintiffs only when the plaintiffs visited the suit
properties. Hence, immediately the plaintiffs and
other land owners took steps to engage their own
advocates and now the plaintiffs and other land
owners are being represented by their own counsel
at Chennai. Hence, the plaintiffs in order to remove
the could cover the title of the land have filed the suit
to cancel the alleged sale deeds executed by the
plaintiffs in favour of the defendant through
fraudulent means.”
7.4 Thereafter, in paragraph 20, it is averred and alleged as under:-
“20. The plaintiffs humbly submit that the defendant has
obtained the sale deed from the plaintiffs by
fraudulent means therefore the alleged sale deed
executed by plaintiffs in favour of the defendant as
document No. 3555/2005 dated 19.09.2005 has to
be cancelled.”
7.5 Therefore, even considering the averments and allegations in the
plaints only, it can be seen that even according to the plaintiffs, the
cause of action for the suit arose on 19.09.2005, the date on which the
plaintiffs executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. In
paragraph 21, while considering the cause of action, it is further averred
that the cause of action has arisen on:-
(i) 20.09.1983 – when Section 4 Notification was issued by the
Government of Tamil Nadu;
(ii) when the Writ Petition No. 4079 of 1989 was filed;
(iii) 07.07.1989 – the date when the said order in W.M.P. No.
5983 of 1989 was given;
(iv) 07.01.1994 – the date when the said order was vacated;
(v) 01.04.1998 – the date when the plaintiffs filed a writ appeal;
(vi) 01.04.1998- when the High Court quashed the entire
acquisition proceedings and on subsequent dates when the
Housing Board filed the special leave petitions before this
Court.
7.6 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that most of the cause of
actions alleged are much prior to /prior to the execution of the registered
Sale Deeds.
7.7 Even the averments and allegations with respect to knowledge of
the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said to be too vague.
Nothing has been mentioned on which date and how the plaintiffs had
the knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/or
misrepresentation. It is averred that the alleged fraudulent sale came to
the knowledge of the plaintiffs only when the plaintiffs visited the suit
property. Nothing has been mentioned when the plaintiffs visited the suit
property. It is not understandable how on visiting the suit property, the
plaintiffs could have known the contents of the sale deed and/or the
knowledge about the alleged fraudulent sale.
14
7.8 Even the averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to
fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations how
the fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating in the plaint that a
fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must
be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word
“fraud”, the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which
otherwise may be barred by limitation. Therefore, even if the submission
on behalf of the respondents – original plaintiffs that only the averments
and allegations in the plaints are required to be considered at the time of
deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is accepted, in
that case also by such vague allegations with respect to the date of
knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the
documents after a period of 10 years. By such a clever drafting and
using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within
the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation Act. The
plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of
limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation. At
this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of Raghwendra
Sharan Singh (supra) is required to be referred to. In the said decision,
this Court had occasion to consider all earlier decisions on exercise of
powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which are considered by this
Court in paragraphs 6.4 to 6.9 as under:-
“6.4. In T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal,
(1977) 4 SCC 467], while considering the very same
provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the decree of the
trial court in considering such application, this Court in para
5 has observed and held as under: (SCC p. 470)
“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse
of the process of the court repeatedly and
unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement
of the facts found in the judgment of the High
Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now
pending before the First Munsif's Court,
Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies
of the law in receiving plaints. The learned
Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful
— not formal — reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he
should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC taking care to see that the ground
mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever
drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by
examining the party searchingly under Order 10
CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits.”
6.5. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational
Charitable Society [Church of Christ Charitable Trust &
Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational
Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706], this Court in para 13 has
observed and held as under: (SCC p. 715)
“13. While scrutinising the plaint averments, it is
the bounden duty of the trial court to ascertain
the materials for cause of action. The cause of
action is a bundle of facts which taken with the
16
law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the
right to relief against the defendant. Every fact
which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to
enable him to get a decree should be set out in
clear terms. It is worthwhile to find out the
meaning of the words “cause of action”. A
cause of action must include some act done by
the defendant since in the absence of such an
act no cause of action can possibly accrue.”
6.6. In ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [(1989) 2
SCC 163], this Court explained the meaning of “cause of
action” as follows: (SCC p. 170, para 12)
“12. A cause of action means every fact, which
if traversed, it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a
judgment of the court. In other words, it is a
bundle of facts which taken with the law
applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to
relief against the defendant. It must include
some act done by the defendant since in the
absence of such an act no cause of action can
possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual
infringement of the right sued on but includes
all the material facts on which it is founded. It
does not comprise evidence necessary to prove
such facts, but every fact necessary for the
plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a
decree. Everything which if not proved would
give the defendant a right to immediate
judgment must be part of the cause of action.
But it has no relation whatever to the defence
which may be set up by the defendant nor does
it depend upon the character of the relief
prayed for by the plaintiff.”
6.7. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable [Sopan Sukhdeo
Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] in paras 11
and 12, this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 146)
“11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the
basic question to be decided while dealing with
an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code is whether a real cause of action has
been set out in the plaint or something purely
illusory has been stated with a view to get out
of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
12. The trial court must remember that if on a
meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint
it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it
should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule
11 of the Code taking care to see that the
ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever
drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first
hearing by examining the party searchingly
under Order 10 of the Code. (See T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC
467].)”
6.8. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy [Madanuri Sri
Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174],
this Court has observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 178-
79, para 7)
“7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7
Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said
provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe
that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can
be exercised by the court at any stage of the
suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked
into for deciding the application are the
averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and
meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that
the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in
the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the
court should exercise power under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the
court to terminate civil action at the threshold is
drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of
rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to.
The averments of the plaint have to be read as
a whole to find out whether the averments
disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is
barred by any law. It is needless to observe that
the question as to whether the suit is barred by
any law, would always depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. The
averments in the written statement as well as
the contentions of the defendant are wholly
immaterial while considering the prayer of the
defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when
the allegations made in the plaint are taken to
be correct as a whole on their face value, if they
show that the suit is barred by any law, or do
not disclose cause of action, the application for
rejection of plaint can be entertained and the
power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be
exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has
created the illusion of a cause of action, the
court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that
bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.”
6.9. In Ram Singh [Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal
Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364], this Court has observed and
held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff
cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of
clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those
circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of
limitation.”
7.9 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions
on exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the
case on hand and the averments in the plaints, we are of the opinion
that both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the
plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The
respective suits have been filed after a period of 10 years from the date
of execution of the registered sale deeds. It is to be noted that one suit
was filed by the minor, which was filed in the year 2006, in which some
of the plaintiffs herein were also party to the said suit and in the said suit,
there was a specific reference to the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2005 and
the said suit came to be dismissed in the year 2014 and immediately
thereafter the present suits have been filed. Thus, from the averments in
the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the
opinion that by clever drafting, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits
within the period of limitation, which otherwise are barred by limitation.
Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T.
Arivandandam (supra) and other decision of Raghwendra Sharan
Singh (supra), and as the respective suits are barred by the law of
limitation, the respective plaints are required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order passed
by the High Court rejecting the revision applications and the orders
passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the respective applications
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and refusing to reject the plaints in
exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are hereby quashed
and set aside. The respective applications filed by the appellant herein –
original defendant to reject the respective plaints on the ground that the
same are barred by the law of limitation are hereby allowed. The
respective plaints are hereby rejected on the ground that the same are
barred by limitation.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]
No comments:
Post a Comment