Revision petition against rejection of application to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Court held trial court was justified as limitation cannot be determined from bare reading of plaint without hearing on preliminary issue.
Revision petition dismissed holding trial court justified in rejecting application without hearing on limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 44/2021
Jagdish Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Village Baradwa, Tehsil Deedwana, Dis. Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Rajpurohit with Mr. B. L. Choudhary. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
06/08/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2 of 3)
[CR-44/2021]
This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.04.2021 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Deedwana, whereby, the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
The suit was filed by the respondents – plaintiffs seeking specific performance of contracts dated 19.07.1972 & 09.02.2003 and for permanent injunction. The averments were made in the plaint pertaining to arising of the cause of action wherein it was claimed that the cause of action arose on 10.10.2017 and the present suit was filed on 14.07.2020.
Petitioner filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia on the ground that both the agreements relied on were fraudulent and concocted, they were unregistered and the suit was barred by limitation and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.
The application was contested by the plaintiffs.
The trial court after hearing the parties, by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that for disposal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the plaint is required to be looked into and on the perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by limitation and consequently, rejected the application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the averments made in the plaint, attempted to indicate that the cause of action had arisen to the plaintiffs long before filing of the suit and as such, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record including the plaint.
(3 of 3)
[CR-44/2021]
Though, as the suit for specific performance has been filed seeking performance of agreements dated 19.07.1972 & 09.02.2003, the claim of the petitioners regarding the suit being barred by limitation, on first blush may appear to be justified, however, the said aspect has to be reflected from the plaint for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial court was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that from bare reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. In those circumstances, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
No case for interference in the order impugned is made out. However, looking to the nature of the case, once the issues are framed and if an appropriate application is filed seeking decision on the aspect of limitation as the preliminary issue, it is expected of the trial court to deal with the same appropriately.
With the above observations, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
13-Sachin/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC solely based on the bare reading of the plaint regarding the bar of limitation.
Whether the averments in the plaint regarding the age of agreements are sufficient to declare the suit barred by limitation for rejection.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagdish Singh
Salab Kanwar
Gajendra Singh
Vikram Singh
Manju Kanwar
Mag Singh
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
