Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: March 15, 2022, at 10:31 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna of Supreme Court overturned the High Court of Calcutta bench order that had allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and rejected the plaint.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court shall read the application to its entirety and not just a few averments and passages.
The Two-Judge Bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna were hearing an appeal against the High Court of Calcutta Bench order that had set aside the order passed by the trial court and allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and has rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation as well as the suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable.
The Apex Court did not agree with the decision of the High Court, that the High Court while setting aside the order of the Trial Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint while exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, on hearing the side of the council it was found out that, the High Court has not at all considered the entire suit averments and has not considered the averments in the plaint as a whole.
And that the High Court has not at all properly appreciated the fact that the plaintiffs claimed the relief in the suit invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and also prayed for the relief of permanent injunction.
The respondent vehemently opposed the contentions of the appellant.
The Apex Court stated that only in those cases where it can be seen that the suit is barred by limitation on the face of it may get rejected under Order VII Rule 11(CPC) on the ground of limitation and that rejecting a plaint merely by reading a few passages is impermissible.
“Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation…rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint is impermissible.”
the Court said.
The Apex Court further stated that when both the parties are praying for injunction and one of the party, here it is averred to be the plaintiff, has been in possession of the land for more than 12 years, has developed the land and has paid taxes to the corporation for the same, then the cause of action can be said to have arisen on the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed.
If that be so, the suit for decree for permanent injunction cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
As a result, the Apex Court quashed and set aside the order of the High Court of Calcutta bench that had allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in rejecting the plaint by stating that whatever observations are made by this Court in the present order shall be confined to deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only and the trial court to finally decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence led.