Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust And Ors Vs Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle And Another (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered an appeal arising from the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), wherein the defendants sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court and the High Court had declined to reject the plaint, holding that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence at trial.
The suit sought declarations of ownership over certain lands, declarations that compromise decrees passed in earlier civil proceedings were void, permanent injunction against the defendants, and recovery of possession. The defendants contended that the plaintiff sought to challenge transactions, registered sale deeds, and judicial orders dating back several decades by creating an artificial cause of action. According to them, the suit was barred under Articles 58, 59 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and deserved rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principles governing Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It observed that the provision is an independent and special remedy empowering the Court to terminate a suit at the threshold without recording evidence where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or appears to be barred by law. While deciding such an application, the Court must confine itself to the averments contained in the plaint together with the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. Neither the written statement nor the defence raised by the defendants can be considered. The Court must undertake a meaningful reading of the plaint and determine whether the pleadings disclose a genuine cause of action or merely create an illusion through clever drafting. If the suit is manifestly vexatious, meritless, or barred by limitation, the plaint must be rejected.
