The Plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose cause of action or is barred by law: SC
- shrey singh
- Jul 19, 2020
- 4 min read
Dahiben v Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019 decided on 9th July,2020
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.11618 of 2017]
Bench: L Nageswara Rao & Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Laws Involved: Limitation Act 1963, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 & Land Revenue Code
Facts
The case made out by the Plaintiff is that even though he had executed the registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,74,02,000, an amount of only Rs.40,000 was paid to them. The remaining 31 cheques mentioned in the Sale Deed, which covered the balance amount of Rs.1,73,62,000 were alleged to be “bogus” or “false”, and allegedly remained unpaid. According to Court, the averments by the Plaintiff is completely contrary to the recitals in the Sale Deed as the Plaintiffs have expressly and unequivocally acknowledged that the entire sale consideration was “paid” by Defendant therefore the case is devoid of cause of action and falls under Order VII Rule 11(a).
The Trial Court held that the period of limitation for filing the suit was 3 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009. However, the suit was filed on 15.12.2014. Therefore, the suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed could have been filed by 2012 in accordance with Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was however filed on 15.12.2014, which was barred by limitation. The court also pointed out that the suit property was subsequently sold by means of a registered Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013 and before purchasing the suit property, the Respondents had issued a public notice on 14.08.2012, but the Plaintiffs failed to raise any objection to the same. The Trial Court, on the basis of the settled position in law, held that the suit of the Plaintiffs was barred by limitation, and allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in entertaining the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC?
Held
The Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was meritless and did not disclose a right to sue, which made it liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 (a)&(d).
The Court, deliberating on the aspects related to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, propounded that the main objective of this provision is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation. The Court also acknowledged that under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
Addressing the issue pertaining to “Cause of Action” the Court deliberated that if any Court finds that a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint.
Applying the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal as a precedent the Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory. Subsequently, the court also held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint. This was asserted by substituting the case of I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal as a precedent.
Addressing the aspects of this case related to the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court said that this act prescribes a time-limit for the institution of all suits, appeals, and applications. Interpreting the “right to sue” in context of Limitation Act, the court asserted that “right to sue” means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises and such a suit must be instituted when the 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. Herein the court relied upon a judgement delivered by a three judge bench in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh wherein it was 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.
Comments