Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with grounds for rejection of a plaint, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint.

"Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation. At this stage what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. For the aforesaid purpose, the Court has to consider and read the averments in the plaint as a whole....", observed a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna.

These observations were made by the Top Court while setting aside an order of the Calcutta High Court whereby it had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mainly on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and that a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable as against the actual owner.

Sri Biswanath Banik– original plaintiffs and present appellants had instituted a Title Suit against the respondents Smt. Sulanga Bose.

Bose submitted an application before the trial court requesting to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable which was rejected by the trial court which refused to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Accordingly, Bose preferred revision application before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court and allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejecting the plaint.

Aggrieved by the High Court's order, Banik approached the top court in appeal.

The top court remarked that so far as the issue whether the suit can be said to be barred by limitation or not, at this stage, what was required to be considered was the averments in the plaint.

It was found that the High Court had considered only the averments made in paragraph 4 of the plaint and had not considered the entire plaint averments.

Relying on the ruling of Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Ors., the bench opined that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint was impermissible.

As far as the High Court's reasoning that the suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act against the original owner would not be maintainable was concerned, the top court noted that even the plaintiffs had also prayed for the decree for a permanent injunction claiming to be in possession. 

Thus theCourt said, 

"When the suit is for a decree of permanent injunction and it is averred that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property pursuant to the agreement and thereafter, they have developed the land and that they are in continuous possession since more than twelve years and they are also paying taxes to the Corporation, the cause of action can be said to have arisen on the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed. If that be so, the suit for decree for permanent injunction cannot be said to be barred by limitation."

Noting that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in rejecting the plain, the appeal was allowed and the order of the trial court was ordered to be restored.

Cause Title: Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr. vs Smt. Sulanga Bose & Ors.