Plaint Cannot Be Rejected If One Of The Reliefs Sought Is Within Limitation: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Order VII Rule 11 CPC

The Apex Court was hearing appeals filed against orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had allowed a revision petition and dismissed a recall application, holding that a suit instituted by the appellant was barred by limitation.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, while adjudicating the matter, observed that “where several reliefs are sought in suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse to Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC11.”

Advocate Subhasish Bhowmick represented the appellants, while Advocate Ajay Pal appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The matter arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant seeking a declaration of ownership over ancestral land, possession, damages, and an injunction. The dispute followed competing claims of inheritance after the death of the owner, whose estate became the subject of litigation involving a will alleged to have been executed in 1976.

The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, contending that the suit was hopelessly time-barred since the plaintiffs were aware of the will as early as 1983, and that an earlier civil suit filed in 2012 on a similar cause of action had already been dismissed.

The trial court, however, rejected the application, holding that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and that the plaint could not be dismissed at the threshold.

However, the High Court, in revision, set aside the trial court’s order and allowed the application for rejection of the plaint, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the principles governing rejection of plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and emphasised that “only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law.”

The Bench noted that the plaintiff’s claim was based on succession to the estate of the deceased, and that “neither the plaint nor any document brought on record indicated that the will was probated or its validity was tested and upheld in regular civil proceedings.”

While reiterating that mutation entries do not confer title but serve fiscal purposes only, the Bench further observed that since the mutation proceedings concluded in 2017 and the suit was instituted within three years thereafter, it could not be said to be ex facie barred by limitation.

The Bench also noted that because the plaintiffs had sought possession of immovable property based on title, “the limitation period is 12 years when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff (vide Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act).”

While referring to Indira v. Arumugam (1998), the Court stated that “when a suit is instituted for possession, based on title, to defeat the suit on the ground of adverse possession, the burden is on the defendant to prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period.” This, the Bench held, “cannot be an issue on which the plaint could be rejected at the threshold.”

Furthermore, while clarifying the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, the Bench held that when several reliefs are sought in a suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law.

Conclusion

Holding that the Punjab and Haryana High Court erred in treating the suit as time-barred, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and restored the trial court’s order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

The Bench further directed that the trial court shall proceed with the matter and decide the suit on merits, clarifying that its observations were limited to examining whether the plaint was liable to rejection at the threshold.

Cause Title: Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1238)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocate Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR

Respondent: Advocate Ajay Pal, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment