Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can't Be Rejected As Time Barred When Limitation Is Mixed Question Of Law & Facts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that when the question of limitation involves disputed facts, such issues cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 

The Court reasoned that when the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, it cannot be decided summarily without allowing the parties to lead evidence on the arising of the cause of action.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan set aside the Madras High Court's decision, noting that it had wrongly interfered with the trial court's well-reasoned order dismissing an application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The Respondent/defendant had sought rejection of the suit, which contained disputed facts about the date of knowledge giving rise to the cause of action.

The Respondent/Defendant contended that the cause of action arose in 1988, when the sale deed was executed and registered. In contrast, the Appellant asserted that he discovered the alleged fraud only in 2011 upon learning of subsequent transactions, and accordingly filed the suit in 2014 within three years of this claimed discovery (Article 59 Limitation Act prescribed a three-year limitation period for seeking cancellation of instrument from the date of knowledge of cause of action).

While the trial court rejected the Respondent's application seeking dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11, the High Court, in a revision petition, overturned that decision and dismissed the suit at the threshold, without allowing the parties to present evidence regarding the Appellant's knowledge of the cause of action.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant/plaintiff moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan noted that since the date of knowledge of the cause of action is a mixed question of law and fact while computing limitation, the High Court erred in dismissing the suit at the threshold without giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

The Court observed that since the plaint specifically pleaded 2011 as the date of discovery, which must be assumed true for Order VII Rule 11 purposes, the High Court should not have presumed that the suit was barred by limitation.

In support, reliance was placed on the case of Daliben Valjibhai & Others v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1056 where also it was claimed by the plaintiff that he immediately instituted the suit upon getting knowledge of the cause of action, therefore the trial court dismissed Order VII Rule 11 CPC application because it considered the question to be triable issue. The Court upheld the trial court's decision, noting that since the issue was triable and therefore the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.

“The High Court, however, proceeded to reject the plaint solely on a prima facie assumption that the suit was barred by limitation, without undertaking any examination as to whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge was demonstrably false or inherently improbable in light of the record. In the opinion of this Court, such an approach amounts to an error of law and constitutes a misapplication of the well-established principles governing the exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”, the court said.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's decision.

Related- Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Where It's Glaring From Averments That Suit Is Hopelessly Time-Barred, Plaint Is To Be Rejected : Supreme Court

Case Title: P. KUMARAKURUBARAN VERSUS P. NARAYANAN & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 509

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T.archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Nandakumar, Sr. Adv. M/S. Ksn & Co., AOR Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv. Mr. V Balachandran, Adv. Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv. Mr. Viresh Kumar Bhawra, Adv. Mr. Sandhya Dutt, Adv. Mr. Aakash Elango, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR