Cannot Reignite Rights After Sleeping For 45 Years, Suit Barred By Limitation: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Plaint
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court, which allowed an Appeal against the decision of the Trial Court under Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC.
The Supreme Court has upheld the Order allowing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for the suit being barred by limitation, stating that parties cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.
The Court set aside the decision of the High Court, which allowed an Appeal against the decision of the Trial Court under Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC. The High Court held that the issues were triable and could not be dismissed merely on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran held, “In our considered opinion, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court.”
AOR Sudhanshu Prakash represented the Appellants, while Advocate Saket Gogia appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Defendants had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking return of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation, among other grounds. The Trial Court allowed this application and dismissed the suit.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed an Appeal before the High Court, which allowed the Appeal and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants were part of the same larger family. The original owner of the property had four sons. The suit for partition was filed by the grandchildren of one of the sons, alleging that the family owned ancestral joint immovable property and that their legitimate share had been denied. The Plaintiffs sought partition, separate possession, and allotment of their legitimate share.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted the Plaintiffs' argument that the suit, filed in 2023, was within the limitation period, as it should be counted from the date of their knowledge of the sale deed. However, the Court pointed out that the Plaintiffs failed to address when they became aware of the registered sale deeds, suggesting suppression of essential facts.
“The suit is filed in the year 2023, i.e. after a period of 55 years. Further, many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on perusal it is observed that these were in fact registered sale deeds. A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property,” the Bench noted.
Consequently, the Court held that “the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years…The suit was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the High Court is set aside, and both these appeals are hereby allowed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Uma Devi & Ors. v. Anand Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 434)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Sudhanshu Prakash and Abhishek Gupta; Advocates Anisha Agarwal, Sharath Bk, Dasharath T.m, Rohini Musa, Zafar Inayat, Praful Shukla and Nikhil Kumar Singh
Respondents: AOR Dhawesh Pahuja and Rahul Gupta; Advocates Saket Gogia, Gauri Pande, Sheetal Maggon and Mansingh
