Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can Be Rejected Only When Limitation Bar Is Apparent Ex Facie From Plaint Averments: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court held that where the defendants dispute the date on which the cause of action first accrued and set up a different date to contend that the suit is time-barred, the question of limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact, would require evidence, and cannot be decided at the threshold stage without trial.

The Court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Trial Court refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

A Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, while examining the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and Article 58 of the Limitation Act, observed: “At the stage of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, the Court will consider only the plaint averments and the material filed along with the plaint. If, as per the plaint averments themselves, ex facie, the cause of action accrued firstly on the date mentioned in the plaint and from that date the suit is not within the period of limitation, the plaint has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The suit must be barred on the averments of the plaint, ex facie. In other words, it would not require determination of the fact as to when the cause of action accrued first.”

Background

The plaintiff had earlier instituted a suit seeking a perpetual injunction. That suit was dismissed. Subsequently, a fresh suit was filed seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction.

The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, contending that the suit for declaration was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. According to them, the cause of action first accrued in the earlier suit when they had denied the plaintiff’s title in their written statement. Therefore, the present suit filed beyond three years from that denial was time-barred.

The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the plaintiff specifically stated that the cause of action arose on a later date when the defendants allegedly attempted to interfere with possession and asserted a hostile title. It held that the question of limitation could not be determined at the threshold.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and reiterated that the power to reject a plaint is drastic and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed.

The Court held that only the plaint averments and the documents filed with the plaint can be considered at this stage; the defence of the defendants, including pleadings in earlier proceedings, cannot be looked into, and the plaint must show, ex facie, that the suit is barred by law.

The Court noted that Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of three years for suits seeking a declaration, computed from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

It is observed that if the plaint clearly mentions a particular date as the date of first accrual of the cause of action and the suit is filed beyond three years from that date, the plaint is liable to be rejected. However, where the defendants dispute the date mentioned in the plaint and assert that the cause of action accrued earlier, the determination of the correct date would require evidence.

In such a situation, the question of limitation is not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and fact. The Court held that in such cases, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.

The Bench remarked: “If there is objection by the defendants that the cause of action did not accrue on the date mentioned in the plaint but accrued on a different date and from that date the suit is barred, then the question as to when the cause of action accrued first, being a question of fact and its determination being dependent on the evidence to be led, to prove the plea of the plaintiff or of the defendant, the question of limitation would not be a pure question of law. It would then be a mixed question of law and fact, and then the question of limitation so as to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, cannot be gone into at this initial stage without trial”.

The Court further observed that even from the earlier judgment relied upon by the defendants, there was no clear and complete denial of the plaintiff’s title. The plea appeared to be one of absence of exclusive ownership rather than outright denial of title. Therefore, it could not be said, at this stage, that the cause of action first accrued in the earlier proceedings.

The Court also clarified that the suit was one for declaration coupled with consequential relief, and the applicability of the appropriate Article of the Limitation Act would remain open for consideration by the Trial Court in accordance with law.

Conclusion

The High Court held that there was a dispute regarding the date of the first accrual of the cause of action. Since the plaint stated that the cause of action arose on a particular date and the suit was filed within three years from that date, it could not be said ex facie that the suit was barred by limitation.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs was passed, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

Cause Title: Mikkilineni Yujaya Dinesh Babu & Ors. v. Pasala Satyavathi

Appearances

Petitioners: B. Nalin Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mannam Venkata Krishna Rao

Click here to read/download Judgment