Court Determines Limitation Issue Requires Trial for Evidence, Dismisses Revision Petition
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has upheld the trial court's decision to reject an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, filed by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation. The case, Devendra Srivastava v. M/S Eifel Recreation Club (P) Ltd., revolved around a suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction related to a property sale agreement.
The revisionists, Devendra Srivastava and others, challenged the trial court's order dated 06.05.2022, which dismissed their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The revisionists argued that the agreement dated 12.12.2012, which stipulated a one-year period for the execution of the sale deed, had expired in December 2013, and therefore, the suit filed in 2021 was time-barred.
Justice Jaspreet Singh, presiding over the case, emphasized that the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited to examining the averments in the plaint and the documents supporting it, without delving into the defense's arguments. The court noted that the plaint disclosed a subsisting cause of action, thereby necessitating a trial to resolve contentious issues related to the limitation period.
The defendants contended that the plaint was a dead case artificially resurrected, given that the limitation period had expired. However, the plaintiff argued that subsequent agreements and interactions between the parties had altered the terms, which needed to be examined with evidence at trial. The plaintiff highlighted a supplementary agreement and the defendants' conduct, suggesting changes in the terms that made the limitation a mixed question of fact and law.
Justice Singh noted that Article 54 of the Limitation Act provides for a three-year limitation period for suits of specific performance, starting either from the date fixed for performance or when the plaintiff is notified of the refusal. The court observed that the supplementary agreement and the defendants' assurances could potentially influence the timeline, thus requiring a thorough examination at trial.
The judgment underscores the principle that the court must consider the plaint's averments without assessing their truthfulness or considering the defense's perspective when deciding applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court concluded that the trial court's decision did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, and the matter should proceed to trial for evidence-based resolution.
Bottom Line:
Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on grounds of limitation must be examined based on the plaint's averments and supporting documents, without considering the defense's version.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11, Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54
