Litigant Who Has Remained Silent For Decades Can't File Suit As Afterthought: Supreme Court On Specific Performance Suit Filed With 38 Years Delay

The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the impugned order passed in a Civil Revision by the Bombay High Court affirming the order of the Civil Judge whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, filed by the appellants came to be rejected.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “In such a factual circumstance, we find substance in the argument put forth by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that the suit is clearly barred by limitation in the eyes of law. A litigant who has remained silent for decades cannot be permitted to file a suit as an afterthought, in ignorance of the laws of limitation."

"Consequently, the present suit filed by the respondents is an abuse of process of the Court and barred by law", it added.

AOR Sahil Tagotra represented the Appellant while AOR Gauri Rajput represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The litigation arose over a plot. It was alleged that one Tukaram Daji Bhoir, was the original owner of the subject property and predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. In 1974, the Development Plan for the Ulhasnagar township was finalised, wherein certain lands were reserved in the public interest to provide infrastructure in the form of roads and other amenities. Those affected were to be rehabilitated at alternate sites. The subject property formed part of the same. It was alleged that the respondents entered into an unregistered agreement to sell the subject property with the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. A Power of Attorney was issued in favour of the sixth respondent, and in 1988, the possession of the subject property was handed over to the Managing Officer, Ulhasnagar for making the Hill Line Police Station.

In 2002, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants applied for a Sanad for construction over his plots. The SDO, Ulhasnagar informed the third appellant that as per the Surveyor’s Report, the said land fell under a Site which was reserved for a Police Station and possession thereof was handed over in 1988. Aggrieved thereof, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed a Revision Application. On remand, the SDO issued a letter to the appellants to locate and identify a suitable alternate property in lieu of the subject property. In 2018, the respondents addressed a letter to the SDO, asking for an alternate site to be allotted to them instead of the appellants. The SDO refused to take cognizance of the claim by the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed an Appeal which came to be rejected.

During the pendency of the writ petition of the respondents, the appellants executed registered sale deeds over the alternative properties allotted. In 2022, the respondents filed a Civil Suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell and other consequential reliefs. The appellants then filed two applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint as the suit was barred by limitation. It was stated therein that the suit was based on an unregistered instrument from 1984, and the suit was filed with an undue delay of thirty-eight years. The Trial Court rejected the applications seeking rejection of the suit. The High Court rejected the civil revision and affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Order 7 Rule 11, which pertains to rejection of plaint, the Bench explained that the purpose behind the remedy under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is to prevent protracted proceedings in a civil suit, which itself is barred by law. “It is settled law that the contents of the plaint have to be read as a whole, to ascertain the application of conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the foundation of the case of the respondents was the agreement dated August 21, 1984. The Bench found no warranted explanation as to why no suit was initiated for the execution of the Conveyance Deed for more than three decades. “Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 clearly specifies that the period of limitation for a suit of specific performance is three years”, it noted.

The Bench refused to accept the submissions of the respondents that the period of limitation would run from the date of the order of the High Court. According to the Bench, the appellants had rightly placed reliance on the exposition of the Court in Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Praje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr (2024) wherein while allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, the Apex Court reiterated that the period of limitation would begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

"In our view, the High Court simply made a categorical observation that till date the respondents have not filed any substantive civil suit to establish their rights qua the subject property. In our view, by no stretch of imagination can this observation become the basis for a fresh period limitation or fresh basis for finally filing such a suit", it stated.

Thus, terming the suit filed by the respondents an abuse of process of the Court, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.

Cause Title: Shobha Vasant Bhoir & Ors. v. Soni @ Vandana Gurumukhdas Jagiasi (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 664)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Sahil Tagotra

Respondent: AOR Gauri Rajput, Neha Faridi, Gauri Kaushik, T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Amrita Verma, Aswathi M.K., Advocates M. Vidhya, Pradeep Kumar Kar, Jai Prakash Shekhawat, Arularasan S, AOR Anshul Patel, Anugraha Sabu

Click here to read/download Judgment