Allowed¶27

Kalimata Infratech Limited v. Maheshwari Devi & Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Jun 2026CS/107/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Order VII Rule 11(d); plaint barred by law; jurisdictional jeopardy; testamentary jurisdiction; PLA 115 of 1997; CS 380 of 1973; deed of gift 1948; Article 59 Limitation Act 1963; Section 31 Specific Relief Act 1963; Chotanben (2018) 6 SCC 422; Azhar Hussain 1986 (Supp) SCC 315; Kalimata Infratech Limited; Maheshwari Devi; Calcutta High Court Original Side; GA 3/2024; CS/107/2016; deemed decree; suit disposed; nipped at the bud; plaint cannot be partly rejected

What did the court decide?

Application GA 3/2024 allowed; plaint in CS/107/2016 rejected; deemed decree to be drawn up; suit disposed of along with all pending applications. ¶27

Kalimata Infratech Limited Vs Maheshwari Devi & Ors. — Specific Performance | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application GA 3/2024 allowed; plaint in CS/107/2016 rejected; deemed decree to be drawn up; suit disposed of along with all pending applications.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in CS/107/2016 should be rejected on the Defendant's application GA 3/2024 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. +3 more

¶14

Court's answer

While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, what is to be considered is the plaint itself; a meaningful reading of the plaint is sine qua non, and the defence available to the Defendants or pleas in the written statement cannot be the basis to decide the application — only the averments in the plaint are germane.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

For rejection of the plaint a Court need not wait for a formal application by the Defendant if a meaningful reading of the plaint shows that the plaint ought to be rejected; a frivolous claim may be nipped at the bud.

¶20

Key takeaways

Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact; the deed sought to be challenged in the suit was executed in 1948 and its original executor expired long ago without alleging anything regarding the execution. (No conclusive finding on the Article 59 plea is recorded; the court proceeded to the other bars.)obiter¶23
A plaint cannot be dissected and partly rejected; a simple and meaningful reading of this plaint shows it contains prayers barred by law — it invites and demands jurisdictional jeopardy by seeking to negate orders of Co-ordinate Benches in testamentary jurisdiction and a previous decree — hence the plaint is barred by law, though this ground was not specifically pleaded in the application.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Original Side), Sugato Majumdar, J., 10 June 2026 — GA 3/2024 in CS/107/2016 (Kalimata Infratech Limited v. Maheshwari Devi & Ors.): Defendant's application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed; plaint rejected, deemed decree directed, and suit disposed of with all pending applications. Grounds urged: bar under Section 31, Specific Relief Act 1963 (incorrect description of suit property) and Article 59, Limitation Act 1963 (deed of gift of 01.08.1948 challenged with knowledge obtained 25.03.2011; suit filed 2016). Court held that under Order VII Rule 11 only the averments in the plaint are germane and the plaint must be read as a whole; a plaint cannot be dissected and partly rejected; and this plaint, by praying to negate orders of Co-ordinate Benches passed in testamentary jurisdiction (Letter of Administration and order dated 24.07.1998 in PLA 115 of 1997) and a previous decree (CS 380 of 1973), invites and demands 'jurisdictional jeopardy' and is barred by law. Relied on Chotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai (2018) 6 SCC 422 and Azhar Hussain v. Rajib Gandhi 1986 (Supp) SCC 315.

¶1

OD –30

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

¶4

IA NO. GA/3/2024 In CS/107/2016

¶5

KALIMATA INFRATECH LIMITED

¶6

¶7

MAHESHWARI DEVI & ORS.

¶8

BEFORE:

¶9

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR

¶10

Date: 10^th June, 2026

¶11

Appearance: Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aishik Chakraborty, Adv.

¶12

...for the Plaintiff.

¶13

Mr. Ratul Das, Adv. Mr. Pranay Mukherjee, Adv. …for the Defendant nos. 15 to 20.

¶14

The Court: GA 3 of 2024 is an application, praying for rejection of plaint and consequential prayers.

¶15

The Defendant filed the instant application on several grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the suit is barred under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in as much as the description of the suit property is incorrect. Secondly, it was contended that the suit is also barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in view of the fact that a deed of gift, executed on 1^st August, 1948 is sought to be challenged knowledge of which had been obtained on 25^th March, 2011 whereas the suit was filed in the year 2016. It was further contended that on meaningful reading

¶16

¶17

of the plaint shows that it is manifestly vexatious, meritless and is based on an illusory cause of action. Accordingly, it was prayed that the plaint be rejected.

¶18

Affidavit-in-Opposition was filed, refuting all the allegations and contentious. It was contended that merit of the Plaintiff’s case or defense raised in the written statement cannot be looked into for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Factual aspects of this case, pleaded in the affidavit-in-opposition, need not be looked into. It was denied that suit was barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.

¶19

Both the counsels exchanged notes of argument.

¶20

There is no cavil on the point that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 what is to be considered is the plaint itself. A meaningful reading of the plaint is sine qua non for adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In plethora of decisions, the Supreme Court of India reiterated this. Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Chotanben and Anr. Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai [(2018) 6 SCC 422] held that what is relevant for answering the matter in issue, in the context of the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to examine averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The Defence available to the Defendants or any plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only the averments in the plaint in germane. It is also a settled principle of law that for rejection of the plaint a Court need not wait for formal application by the Defendant if a meaningful reading of the plaint shows

¶21

¶22

that the plaint ought to be rejected and a frivolous claim may be nipped at the bud. In Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajib Gandhi [1986 (Supp) SCC 315] the Supreme Court of India observed that the whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court and exercise the mind of the Respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose.

¶23

One of the pleas of the Defendant is limitation. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. What is sought to be challenged in the suit is a deed executed in the year 1948. The original executor of the deed expired long ago without alleging anything regarding the execution. Now someone else claims that the deed had been obtained wrongfully and the execution itself is blameworthy.

¶24

Apart from praying a declaratory decree for setting aside the deed of gift along with prayers of consequent injunction, the plaint also contains some other prayers which are specifically mentioned in Schedule-B. The Schedule-B contains prayer of declaration that subsequent deed of conveyances dated 24^th July 1975, lease deed dated 11/09/1984, agreement for sale executed consequent to decree passed in CS 380 of 1973 by this Court, conveyance dated 24^th August , 1981 executed by the Registrar of this Court, the will made by Bhubeneswari Prasad Singh Deo and the Letter of Administration granted by this Court in PLA 115 of 1997, Order passed by Co-ordinate Bench dated 24^th July, 1998 in PLA 115 of 1997 and MOU dated 21^st August, 1992 are void. In other words, the Plaintiff invites this Court to negate the orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in exercise of testamentary jurisdiction. The suit also urges this Court to negate a previous decree passed in a previous suit along with others. In fact, the Plaintiff invites this Court to commit

¶25

¶26

jurisdictional jeopardy in interfering with order passed by the Co-ordinate Benches in exercise of testamentary jurisdiction. Apart from the question of limitation these are the impinging issues which stare at this Court to address immediately. A simple and meaningful reading of the plaint impresses that the plaint contains such prayers which are barred by law. A plaint cannot be dissected and partly rejected. This is the settled principle of law. Therefore, though not specifically pleaded in the instant application, this Court is of view that the plaint invites and demands jurisdictional jeopardy, hence barred by law.

¶27

For discussions made above, the instant application is allowed and the plaint stands rejected accordingly.

¶28

Let the deemed decree be drawn up.

¶29

The instant suit is disposed of along with all pending applications.

¶30

(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)

¶31

A.Das (P.A.)

Kalimata Infratech Limited v. Maheshwari Devi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalimata Infratech Limited v. Maheshwari Devi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harihar Maity and Ors. Vs Milu Das Mahapatra and Ors.

Rabin Mukherjee & Ors. Vs Netai Das

Krishna Kumar Bhatter Vs Sudha Kankaria

In the Goods of Chinmoy Kumar Maiti (Dec) Vs Na

Ranu Bhandari Vs Nilima Das & Oths.

Sudipta Ghosh Vs Biswajit Pradhan