Case Title: Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh
According to the Supreme Court, a plaint may be dismissed in accordance with Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure if, after careful consideration of the averments, it is determined that the lawsuit is unquestionably time-barred.
In this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the gift deed signed on March 6,1981 in favour of the defendant was a fake and fraudulent transaction and that no defendant ever acquired any title to or possession of the transferred property, making it unenforceable against him. He further prayed for the court to confirm his ownership of the suit property and to issue a decree for recovery of possession if the court deemed fit.
Ideally, the suit under Article 59 of the Limitation Act should have been filed within three years of execution of the gift deed, but it was filed more than 22 years after its execution. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation. It was additionally submitted that the suit is not only barred by law of limitation, but it is a vexatious and meritless one, therefore, the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Rule 7 Order 11 of the CPC. The application was denied by the Trial court, and the High court upheld this decision by denying the defendant's revision motion. The Trial Court having agreed with the plaintiff's argument that the matter of limitation can be considered to be a blended question of law and fact. Accordingly, both parties were required to present evidence before the limitation issue could be examined.
The bench read the averments of the complaint and relying on the case of Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan noted that, the plaintiff attempted to file the lawsuit by manipulating the plaint and brought it within the statute of limitations, even though doing so would have violated the law. The Court believed that the failure of both the subordinate courts to dismiss the complaint in accordance with Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC constituted a substantial error.
The court further placing its reliance upon T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal emphasised that the plaint must be dismissed in order to exercise the court's authority under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC because the lawsuit is obviously time-barred. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to use clever wording to misuse the clause and avoid mentioning the events that render the lawsuit time-barred, the court further ruled.