Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs Rasheed Patel on 10 December, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35105
1 CR-176-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 176 of 2024
RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
Versus
RASHEED PATEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nilesh Agrawal - Advocate for petitioner- defendant No.2.
Shri Rishiraj Trivedi- Advocate for respondent No.1- plaintiff.
ORDER
The present civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, has been preferred by the petitioner- defendant, taking exception to the order
dated 29.01.2024 passed by Vth Civil Judge Senior Division, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
Mhow, District Indore in Civil Suit No.84-A/2023 (Rasheed Vs. Smt. Manju & Others)
whereby the application filed by appellant/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with
Section 151 of CPC and Section 3 of Limitation Act for rejection of plaint, have been
rejected.
Facts giving rise to present revision in short that plaintiff- respondent No.1
herein filed a suit for specific performance, permanent injunction and possession
pleading that an agreement to sell of the suit property was made on 28-06-2015
between plaintiff and original defendant No.1. It is pleaded by plaintiff that he
requested original defendant No.1 to take balance amount and for execution and
registration of sale deed in his favour but defendant No.1 informed that she is busy in
family issues and later on, she should execute the sale deed, but execution of sale deed
was delayed by defendant No.1 till February, 2022. It is further pleaded that in the
month of February, defendant No.1 denied to execute sale deed in his favour. Even after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
17:57:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35105
2 CR-176-2024
issuance of notice to defendant No.1 on 30-08-2022, the defendant did not execute the
sale deed in his favour. Thus, he filed a civil suit before the trial Court. Meanwhile, suit
property was transferred by defendant No.1 in his favour vide registered sale deed.
Defendant preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of
CPC and application under Section 3 of the Limitation Act for rejection of plaint. The
trial Court vide order impugned dated 29.01.2024 rejected both applications. Being
dissatisfied, the instant revision has been filed.
It is contended on behalf of petitioner- defendant that the suit filed by the
plaintiff is specifically barred by law of limitation and the same is liable to be
dismissed on account of delay and laches. As per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the
date fixed for performance can be altered only by an acknowledgement in writing and
not otherwise. The suit was not filed within a period of three years from the date fixed
for performance as per Article 54 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act. It is nowhere
pleaded by plaintiff in his plaint averments that the date fixed for performance was ever
altered and he has specifically pleaded that date fixed for performance was 30-12-2015.
The impugned order is perverse, contrary to law and facts and circumstances. The trial
Court has failed to properly and legally exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law.
Thus, prays for allowing this revision by setting aside the impugned order and
consequently, the plaint may be rejected and the suit filed by respondent No.1 be
dismissed.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the contentions of
petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this revision.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as the
documents available on record.
In the matter of in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and another
reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 it has been held by Apex Court as under:-
“The trial Court must remember that if on a meaningful- not formal-reading of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
17:57:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35105
3 CR-176-2024
the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, he (Munsif) should exercise his power under Order VII rule11, C.P.C.
taking care to see that the round mentioned therein fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has
created the illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first
hearing by examining the party searchingly under Chapter X, C.P.C. An activist Judge
is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on
examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot- down at the
earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men (Ch.XI) and
must be triggered against them.”
Further in the matter of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead
through L.Rs and others (2020) 7 SCC 366 it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court as
under :-
26. ……………. The period of limitation prescribed under Articles 58 and 59 of the
1963 Act is three years, which commences from the date when the right to sue first
accrues.
27. In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. v. Union of India &Anr., this Court held
that the use of the word „first‟ between the words „sue‟ and „accrued‟, would mean
that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to
run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive
violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will
be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date
when the right to sue first accrued.
28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, held
that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued
to the plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words
“right to sue” means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right tosue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
17:57:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35105
4 CR-176-2024
right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to
infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule
11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred
by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.”
Further, in the case of Sudhirdas Vs. United Church of D Canada India, Dhar
Beneficiary and others (2020) 1 MPLJ 714 it has been held as under: –
“10. The Court below, after hearing both the parties has rejected the said
application on the ground that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application are
mixed question of law and facts and so far as the ground no.(i) regarding limitation is
concerned, admittedly, plaintiffs in their plaint has stated that the sale-deed has been
executed on 17/06/2009 and the suit has been filed in Year 2017 i.e. after more than 8
years while limitation for challenging the registered sale-deed is 3 years. Thus, on the
basis of pleadings made by the petitioner in the plaint itself the suit is barred by
limitation.”
Further, in the case of Anita Jain Vs. Dilip Kumar and another 2018 (1) MPLJ
554 it has been held as under: –
This Court in the case of Leeladhar & Others Vs. Anwar Patel (Civil Revision
No.275/2011 on 08/03/2016) has held as under:-
“6- The first ground raised in the application preferred under Order VII Rule 11
CPC was that the so called agreement was executed on 10/06/1985 and the land in
question was sold to the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 in the year 1995 and the suit was
filed in the year 2011 for declaring the sale deed as null and void. It was further stated
that in light of the judgment delivered in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industires Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director Vs. State of Haryana & Another reported in 2009(4) MPLJ 315, the
registration of the document is a notice to all concerned and therefore, as the sale deeds
were executed in the year 1995 and the civil suit was filed in the year 2011 for
declaration in respect of cancellation of sale deeds, was hopelessly barred bySignature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
17:57:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:351055 CR-176-2024
limitation.”
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as under:-
“11. Rejection of plaint-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required
by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do
so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon
paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply
the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any
law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the
provisions of rule 9;
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or
supplying of the requisite stamp- paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an
exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper,
as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such
time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
In the matter of Saleem Bhai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra and ors. 2003 (1)
SCC 557 Civil Appeal No.8518/2002 decided on 17.12.200 2, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held as thus :-
“Deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11, averment in the plaint can be seen
not the plea taken in the written statement.”
In the present case, the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 24-03-2023 before the Trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
17:57:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35105
6 CR-176-2024
Court for specific performance, perpetual injunction and possession but perusal of
pleadings in the plaint, it is found that an agreement to contract was executed on 15-08-
2015 between the plaintiff and the original defendant in respect of disputed suit
property and a part amount of sale consideration of Rs.13,43,751/- was received by the
defendant from the plaintiff and the remaining amount of sale consideration was to be
paid by 30-12-2015. According to the verdict of Apex Court, it is settled law that at the
time of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only plaint averments
must be seen. The petitioner filed civil suit before the trial Court on 24-04-2023. The
plaintiff had to file the suit within three years from the cause of action arose as per
Article 54 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the suit is clearly barred by
limitation. Thus, the trial Court has committed error in holding that there is need to
take evidence for consideration of limitation. Therefore, impugned order passed by the
trial Court is not correct in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside and the
application filed by petitioner- defendant under Section 3 of the Limitation Act for
rejection of plaint deserves to be allowed.
In view of above discussions, the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed
by the trial Court is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC is allowed and plaint is rejected. The suit filed by respondent no.1 is
time barred and is dismissed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
17:57:53