(A)Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 – Civil Procedure – Plaint rejected on ground of Limitation – Application for rejection of plaint, rejected by trial court – Approach to High Court – Cause of action arises in year 1982 and 1989 and suit filed in 2019 – Art.58 of the Limitation Act prescribed limitation of three years to file suit relating to declaration and such time starts from the date, such right to sue first accrued. Suit came to be filed in the year 2019 i.e. after around 37 years from the date of accrual of first cause of action Held: Since, in the case at hand, suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record on behalf of the plaintiff qua delay in filing the suit for declaration, impugned order passed by learned court below cannot be said to be passed in accordance with law and as such, same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Plaint rejected.(Para 12, 13, 16, 17)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 – Civil Procedure – Grounds for rejection of plaint – Court details following grounds:
The plaint can be rejected if it does not discloses cause of action and relief claimed is undervalued. If plaintiff despite being called upon by the Court, fails to correct valuation, court can reject the plaint. Most importantly, where suit appears from statement of plaint to be barred by any law, court while exercising power under Order VII, rule 11 CPC can reject the plaint.
It is further apparent from the afore provision of law, that when no plausible explanation is rendered on record qua delay in filing the suit, court below can reject the plaint being barred by limitation. It has been specifically provided under Order VII, rule 11 that where suit appears from statement of plaint to be barred by any law, court can reject the plaint.
Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. (Para 10, 1, 14)
HIMACHAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
Citation: 2023 STPL(Web) 41 HP
M/S Puri Brothers Damtal Vs. Sukhdev Singh and others
CMPMO No. 152 of 2023-Decided on 25-07-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-STPLWeb-41-HP.pdf
