Case: URVASHIBEN Vs. KRISHNAKANT MANUPRASAD TRIVEDI

pertains to eviction from tenanted premises which was contested by the tenant. In the said case where rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11(d) was considered on the ground that plaint does not disclose cause of action but not a case for rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation. In the case of Hardesh Ores (supra) it was the case falling in the first limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act 1963 but not a case falling under second limb, where the time is not the essence of the contract. In the judgment in the case of Dilboo (Dead) (supra) this Court has considered relevant principles of applicability of O.VII R.11 of CPC. Equally, the case of I.T.C. Limited (supra) is a case concerning rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11(a) but not case of rejection on the ground of limitation. In the case of Raj Narain Sarin (supra) the suit was filed after 40 years after execution of the Sale Deed and as a fact it was found that Sale Deed was to the knowledge of the plaintiff and he had not taken any steps to declare the Sale Deed invalid. In that context, the order passed under O.VII R.11 was confirmed by this Court. In the case of N.V. Srinivasa (supra) the suit is for declaration but not for specific performance and in the said suit having regard to the facts of the case this Court has held that suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. In the case of Madanuri Rama (supra) the suit was filed seeking cancellation of Sale Deed on the ground that property in question is a waqf property which cannot be sold to a private party. The aforesaid case is a case not concerning limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act 1963. 14. On the other hand, judgment in the case Gunwantbhai (supra) this Court has held as under : 8. We may straightaway say that the manner in which the question of limitation has been dealt with by the courts below is highly unsatisfactory. It was rightly noticed that the suit was governed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Then, the enquiry should have been, first, whether any time was fixed for performance in the agreement for sale, and if it was so fixed, to hold that a suit filed beyond thre years of the date was barred by limitation unless any case of extension was pleaded and established. But in a case where no time for performance was fixed, the court had to find the date on which the plaintiff had notice that the performance was refused and on finding that date, to see whether the suit was filed within three years thereof. We have explained the position in the recent decision in R.K. Parvtharaj Gupta v. K.C. Jayadeva Reddy (2002) 2 SCC 428. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that no date for performance is fixed in the agreement and if so, the suit could be held to be barred by limitation only on a finding that the plaintiffs had notice that the defendants were refusing performance of the agreement. In a case of that nature normally, the question of limitation could be decided only after taking evidence and recording a finding as to the date on which the plaintiff had such notice. We are not unmindful of the fact that a statement appears to have been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs that they did not want to lead any evidence. The defendants, of course, took the stand that they also did not want to lead any evidence. As we see it, the trial court should have insisted on the parties leading evidence on this question or the court ought to have postponed the consideration of the issue of limitation along with the other issues arising in the suit, after a trial. In the aforesaid case, it is clearly held that in cases falling in second limb of Article 54 finding can be recorded only after recording evidence. The said view expressed by this Court supports the case of the respondent-plaintiff. In the judgment in the case of Rathnavathi (supra) in paragraphs 42 and 43 it was clearly held that when the time is not fixed in the agreement, the limitation of three years to file a suit for specific performance would begin when the plaintiff has noticed that defendant has refused the performance of the agreement. In the judgment in the case of Ahmadsahab Abdul Mulla(2)(Dead) by Proposed LRs. v. Bibijan & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 462 while interpreting Article 54 of the Limitation Act, it is held that words date fixed for the performance is a crystallised notion. The second part time from which period begins to run refers to a case where no such date is fixed. In the case of Balsaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 658 and Chhotanben (supra) this Court clearly held that issue of limitation, being a mixed question of fact and law, is to be decided only after evidence is adduced. 15. By applying the aforesaid principles in the judgments relied on by Sri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, we are of the considered view that merits and demerits of the matter cannot be gone into at this stage, while deciding an application filed under O.VII R.11 of the CPC. It is fairly well settled that at this stage only averments in the plaint are to be looked into and from a reading of the averments in the plaint in the case on hand, it cannot be said that suit is barred by limitation. The issue as to when the plaintiff had noticed refusal, is an issue which can be adjudicated after trial.Even assuming that there is inordinate delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff, same cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11(d) of CPC.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]11. It is fairly well settled that, so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it is a mixed question of fact and law. It is true that limitation can be the ground for rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under O.VII R.11(d) of the CPC. Equally, it is well settled that for the purpose of deciding application filed under O.VII R.11 only averments stated in the plaint alone can be looked into, merits and demerits of the matter and the allegations by the parties cannot be gone into. Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the limitation of three years, for suits for specific performance12. From a reading of the aforesaid Article, it is clear that when the date is fixed for performance, limitation is three years from such date. If no such date is fixed, the period of three years is to be computed from the date when the plaintiff, has notice of refusal. When rejection of plaint is sought in an application filed under O.VII R.11, same is to be considered from the facts of each case, looking at the averments made in the plaint, for the purpose of adjudicating such application. As averred in the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that even after payment of the entire consideration amount registration of the document was not made and prolonged on some grounds and ultimately when he had visited the site on 25.05.2017 he had come to know that the same land was sold to third parties and appellants have refused performance of contract. In such event, it is a matter for trial to record correctness or otherwise of such allegation made in the plaint. In thesuits for specific performance falling in the second limb of the Article, period of three years is to be counted from the date when it had come to the notice of the plaintiff that performance is refused by the defendants. For the purpose of cause of action and limitation when it is pleaded that when he had visited the site on 25.05.2017 he had come to know that the sale was made in favour of third parties and the appellants have refused to execute the Sale Deed in which event same is a case for adjudication after trial but not a case for rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11(d) of CPC13. Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Prabhakar (supra). In the above said case, this Court has held that, even where no limitation period is prescribed by the Statute, courts apply doctrine of delay/laches/acquiescence and non-suit litigants who approach court belatedly without justifiable explanation. Delay and laches are to be examined with reference to facts of each case and the said judgment is not helpful to support the case of the appellant inasmuch as this matter arises out of an application filed under O.VII R.11(d) of the CPC. Thejudgment in the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) pertains to eviction from tenanted premises which was contested by the tenant. In the said case where rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11(d) was considered on the ground that plaint does not disclose cause of action but not a case for rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation. In the case of Hardesh Ores (supra) it was the case falling in the first limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act 1963 but not a case falling under second limb, where the time is not the essence of the contract. In the judgment in the case of Dilboo (Dead) (supra) this Court has considered relevant principles of applicability of O.VII R.11 of CPC. Equally, the case of I.T.C. Limited (supra) is a case concerning rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11(a) but not case of rejection on the ground of limitation. In the case of Raj Narain Sarin (supra) the suit was filed after 40 years after execution of the Sale Deed and as a fact it was found that Sale Deed was to the knowledge of the plaintiff and he had not taken any steps to declare the Sale Deed invalid. In that context, the order passed under O.VII R.11 was confirmed by this Court. In the case of N.V. Srinivasa (supra) the suit isfor declaration but not for specific performance and in the said suit having regard to the facts of the case this Court has held that suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. In the case of Madanuri Rama (supra) the suit was filed seeking cancellation of Sale Deed on the ground that property in question is a waqf property which cannot be sold to a private party. The aforesaid case is a case not concerning limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act 1963In the aforesaid case, it is clearly held that in cases falling in second limb of Article 54 finding can be recorded only after recording evidence. The said view expressed by this Court supports the case of the respondent-plaintiff. In the judgment in the case of Rathnavathi (supra) in paragraphs 42 and 43 it was clearly held that when the time is not fixed in the agreement, the limitation of three years to file a suit for specific performance would begin when the plaintiff has noticed that defendant has refused the performance of the agreement.15. By applying the aforesaid principles in the judgments relied on by Sri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, we are of the considered view that merits and demerits of the matter cannot be gone into at this stage, while deciding an application filed under O.VII R.11 of the CPC. It is fairly well settled that at this stage only averments in the plaint are to be looked into and from a reading of the averments in the plaint in the case on hand, it cannot be said that suit is barred by limitation. The issue as to when the plaintiff had noticed refusal, is an issue which can be adjudicated after trial.Even assuming that there is inordinate delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff, same cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11(d) of CPC.