High Court Holds Pleadings Alone Govern Rejection Of Plaint; Dismisses Revision On Valuation And Limitation Grounds

A bench of Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari heard Civil Revision No.36 of 2023 challenging an order of the First Civil Judge, Class 2, Jagdalpur dismissing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of a plaint. The revision arose from a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of an unregistered Will, and the principal contentions related to alleged under-valuation of the suit and bar of limitation.

The High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the trial court’s order refusing to reject the plaint. The Court held that at the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11, the court must confine itself to the averments in the plaint and accompanying documents and assume those averments to be correct; matters of limitation and valuation which involved questions of fact could not be decided summarily. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is well settled that for determining whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not, the Court has to see only the averments in the plaint and the accompanying document relied upon in the plaint and the fact elicited from the plaintiff by examining him under Order 10. The Court has to presume the fact stated in the plaint as correct. The Court cannot look into the defence set up by the defendant in their written statement or the application while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” The court further quoted authority that “When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11.”

Background

The dispute originated from Civil Suit No.3A/2019 filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction and a declaration that an unregistered Will dated 22.04.2005 was null and void. The plaintiffs valued each relief at Rs.1,000 (aggregate Rs.3,000) and paid court-fees accordingly. The applicants (defendants) moved to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, contending that the suit was undervalued given the urban location of the land and that the suit was time-barred; they relied on an averment in the plaint that the plaintiffs acquired knowledge of the dispute in 2013 and argued that the three-year limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act applied to a declaration claim.

The plaintiffs contested the rejection application, submitting that valuation was proper and that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law which required evidence; they relied on Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal, Salim D. Agboatwala v. Shamaljioddhavji Thakkar and Producin Pvt. Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation to support the proposition that a plea of limitation could not be finally decided on pleadings alone where the plaintiff asserted the date of knowledge. The trial court had dismissed the application and the defendants filed the present revision.

The High Court examined settled principles governing Order 7 Rule 11: the court must read the plaint as whole, accept its averments as correct for the limited purpose of the inquiry and may consider only documents relied upon in the plaint. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents that rejection of a plaint on limitation grounds was a “drastic power” and that where a plaintiff pleaded the point of first knowledge the plea ordinarily had to be accepted at that stage. The High Court found no material illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order, concluded that the prima facie valuation was acceptable and that limitation involved factual enquiry to be decided after evidence, and therefore declined to interfere. The revision was dismissed and the impugned order was affirmed. The Court did not issue any interim directions.

Case Details: Case No.: CR No. 36 of 2023 Case Title: Sheikh Salim Raza and Another v. Shabbir Ahmad and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rishab Gupta, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, PL