Karnataka High Court
Shri. Puttagangaiah vs Shri. G. Ravindrakumar on 12 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20178
CRP No. 568 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 568 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI PUTTAGANGAIAH
S/O LATE HONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT EDAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
2. SMT. K.S. KATHYAYINI
W/O PUTTA GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT EDAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
Digitally signed by
NAGAVENI NELAMANGALA TALUK,
Location: High BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
Court of
Karnataka
3. SMT.P.MAHESH
S/O PUTTAGANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT EDAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
4. SHRI P.RAMESH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20178
CRP No. 568 of 2024
HC-KAR
S/O PUTTAGANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT EDAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI G. RAVINDRAKUMAR
S/O LATE GANGABYLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO 123, 'BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA',
SUBHASHNAGAR,
ANGANAWADI ROAD,
NELAMANGALA TOWN - 562 123.
2. SMT.P.UMADEVI
D/O PUTTAGANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT EDAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
3. SMT.MAMATHA P.,
D/O PUTTAGANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT EDAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20178
CRP No. 568 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. SMT. DIVYA P.,
D/O PUTTAGANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT EDAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 24.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN
OS.NO.608/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE NELAMANGALA, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.III FILED
UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a)(b) AND (d) OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 4 and 7 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 24-06-2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nelamangala -4- NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR rejecting I.A.No.III filed by them in O.S.No.608 of 2021 seeking rejection of the plaint.
2. Heard Sri V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. VijayaKumar K, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The defendants and the plaintiff have a transaction. The transaction is with regard to purchase of a property. A registered agreement of sale is entered into between the defendants and the plaintiff. Pursuant to registered agreement of sale, the defendants do not come forward to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff then institutes O.S.No.608 of 2021 seeking specific performance of enforcement of contract - registered agreement of sale. The defendants come up with an application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The concerned Court, in terms of the impugned order, rejects the application filed by the defendants on the score that the suit filed was well within time and the plaint averments did disclose cause of action.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel Sri V.B. Shivakumar appearing for the petitioners/defendants would contend that a suit for specific performance is instituted on 22-10-2021 for enforcement of an agreement of sale dated 18-03-2016. If that is taken note of, the suit is instituted only in 2021. Therefore, it is beyond the period of three years from the date of the agreement to sell and the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation. He would submit that the plaint be rejected on this score as the order of the concerned Court is erroneous. He would further contend today the land is acquired by the National Highways Authority. The land is not even in existence. Therefore, no relief of specific performance can be granted to the plaintiff, which is an added contention towards rejection of the plaint.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent/plaintiff would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the registered agreement of sale which was entered into between the parties on 18-03-2016 was sought to be cancelled unilaterally by issuing a notice in the year 2019 i.e., on 11-04-2019. The plaintiff has replied to the said notice on 19-04-2019 expressing his readiness and willingness to get -6- NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR the sale deed executed. After the said reply, the defendants have accepted 4 cheques towards sale consideration and the plaintiff as on date paid ₹1.23 crores. Therefore, the cause of action arose on 2-10-2021 when the plaintiff had come to know that by suppressing the agreement of sale, the defendants were trying to alienate the property in favour of third parties.
He would contend that the petition be dismissed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The issue that brings the defendants to this Court is rejection of their application filed in O.S.No.608 of 2021 seeking rejection of the plaint. It is, therefore, necessary to notice Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It reads as follows:
"11. Rejection of plaint.--The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9;
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."
Order VII Rule 11 deals with rejection of plaint which can be on several circumstances as obtaining from clauses (a) to (f) supra. Order VII Rule 11(d) deals with rejection of plaint if it is barred by law. Barred by law would be barred by limitation inter alia. Whether it is barred by law, as contended by the petitioners, is required to be noticed.
8. The defendants entered into a registered agreement of sale on 18-03-2016. The sale deed was not executed. A legal notice was issued by the defendants on 11-04-2019 whereby -8- NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR the defendants intend to cancel the agreement. It is to be noticed that it was an agreement of sale. If it has to be cancelled, it can only be by another registered document and not by unilateral act on the part of one of the parties to the agreement. The legal notice was replied on 19-04-2019 after which the plaintiff institutes the suit. For an application to be considered under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be seen is not the defense of the defendants nor the contents of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC but only the plaint averments. If the plaint averments disclose cause of action, that would suffice for entertaining the suit. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the plaint averments. Relevant paragraphs of plaint averments read as follows:
".... .... ....
3. The plaintiff submits that the defendants are the joint and absolute owners of land bearing Sy.No.31 measuring 01 Acre 18 Guntas, land bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 01 Acre 14 Guntas and land bearing Sy.No.35 measuring 38 Guntas in all measuring 03 Acres 30 Guntas all lands are situated at Edehalli Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, having common boundary which is more fully described in the Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the "Schedule Property".
4. The plaintiff submits that, during the month of March 2016 the defendants have approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the schedule property. The plaintiff -9- NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR who is interested to purchase the Schedule Property has negotiated with the defendants. Finally the defendants have agreed to sell the Schedule Property for a valuable sale consideration amount of ₹2,94,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Ninety Four Lakhs only). After the completion of sale talk, the plaintiff has insisted the defendants to execute registered Agreement of Sale before the Sub- Registrar office. Accordingly, the defendants have agreed to execute the registered Agreement of sale on 18-03- 2016. At the time of negotiations, the defendants have demanded the plaintiff to pay a sum of ₹80,00,000'/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) as advance sale consideration amount. The plaintiff has also agreed for the same. Accordingly, on 18-03-2016, the defendants have executed the registered Agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala. The said Agreement of Sale was registered as document No.NMG-1-13459/2015-16, stored in CD No.NMGD358. On the date of execution of Agreement of sale, the plaintiff has paid a sum of ₹80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) as advance sale consideration amount in the following manner:
(i) A sum of ₹25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-
five lakhs only) by way of cheque bearing No.000133 dated 18-03-2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, Nelamangala Branch.
(ii) A sum of ₹25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-
five lakhs only) by way of cheque bearing no.000134 dated 18-03-2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, Nelamangala Branch.
(iii) A sum of ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) by way of cheque bearing No.000135 dated 18-03-2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, Nelamangala Branch.
The defendants have acknowledged the receipt of said advance sale consideration amount and encashed the above said cheques.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178
CRP No. 568 of 2024
HC-KAR
... ... ...
10.The plaintiff submits that after exchange of notices, the defendants have approached me and requested me to pay further advance sale consideration amount. Accordingly, I have paid a sum of ₹8,40,000/- on different dates in the following manner:
(a) A sum of ₹5,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.065604 dated 09-11-2019 drawn on Axis Bank, Nelamangala Branch.
(b) A sum of ₹90,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.065619 dated 04-06-2020 drawn on Axis Bank, Nelamangala Branch.
(c) A sum of ₹2,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.139118 dated 07-11-2020 drawn on Axis Bank, Nelamangala Branch.
(d) A sum of ₹50,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.145659 dated 29-03-2021 drawn on Axis Bank, Nelamangala Branch.
This, the plaintiff has totally paid a sum of ₹1,23,00,000/- to the defendants. The defendants have utilized the said amount for their family and legal necessities. The plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount of ₹1,71,00,000/- at the time of registration of Absolute Sale Deed."
... ... ...
12. The plaintiff submits that on 02-10-2021, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants by suppressing the execution of Agreement of Sale are trying to alienate the schedule property in favour of third persons. The defendants have informed the local Real Estate Agents to market the schedule property. One of the Real Estate Agent has informed the same to the plaintiff. The
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR defendants have received substantial sale consideration amount from the plaintiff. During the subsistence of Agreement of Sale, the defendants have no right to alienate the schedule property in favour of any third parties. Immediately, after coming to know about the same on 07.10.2021 the plaintiff has approached the defendants and demanded the defendants to execute the Registered Sale Deed in terms of the Agreement of Sale dated 18-03-2016 by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. By the time, the defendants have flatly refused to execute the registered Sale Deed in respect of the schedule property. Having no other alternative, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for the relief of specific performance of contract on the basis of Agreement of Sale dated 18.03.2016."
(Emphasis added) If the afore-quoted paragraphs of the plaint are considered, it would clearly indicate cause of action and institution of the suit is well within the period of limitation. The defendants even after issuance of legal notice intending to cancel the agreement of sale have received amounts from the plaintiff from 09-11-2019 to 29-03-2021. Therefore, on the score that they have gone on receiving amounts towards sale consideration, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose cause of action or is barred by law. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that all the cheques received were not for this transaction. If that is so, it would become a matter of trial and cannot in an application under Order VII Rule 11 be determined as to why
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR they have received the amounts, as it would be a defense being considered at the stage of answering the claim.
9. Now it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. KUMARAKURUBARAN v.
P. NARAYANAN1, wherein it is held as follows:
".... .... ....
12. In the present case, the appellant has specifically averred in the plaint that upon becoming aware of registration of documents allegedly carried out among the defendants in relation to the suit property, he immediately approached the Additional Commissioner of Police, Chennai and lodged a land grabbing complaint on 09.12.2011 against the family of Defendant No. 1. Subsequently, he applied for patta in his favour on 24.02.2012, and raised objections on 05.03.2012 to Defendant No. 4 stating that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and that no registration concerning the same should be carried out. He has also submitted an objection petition to Defendant No. 5 requesting that no planning permit be granted to anybody except the appellant in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, the appellant instituted the suit on 03.12.2014 seeking a declaration and consequential reliefs. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants stated in their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that the appellant had knowledge of the execution of the sale deed by his father in favour of Defendant No. 1 at the earliest point of time and hence, the suit instituted by the appellant was barred by limitation. While the trial Court rejected the said application holding that the issue of limitation involved a mixed question of law and fact, the High Court in revision, took a contrary view and allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 975
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR solely on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.
12.1. However, we are of the considered view that the issue as to whether the appellant had prior notice or reason to be aware of the transaction at an earlier point of time, or whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge is credible, are matters that necessarily require appreciation of evidence. At this preliminary stage, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true. Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation without permitting the parties to lead evidence, is legally unsustainable.
12.2. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the following decisions of this Court, which have consistently held that when the question of limitation involves disputed facts or hinges on the date of knowledge, such issues cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
(i) DalibenValjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai7 "10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants made an application for correcting the revenue records only in the year 2017 and on the said application the Deputy Collector issued notice to the plaintiffs in March 2017 and that was the time when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deed. It is under these circumstances that the suit was instituted in the year 2017. While the High Court came to the correct conclusion that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in cases where the document is
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR registered, the knowledge must be presumed from the date of registration.
11.....
12. Further, in Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar where again a suit for cancellation of sale deed was opposed through an application under Order 7 Rule 11, on ground of limitation, this Court specifically held that limitation in all such cases will arise from date of knowledge. The relevant portion is as follows:
"15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18-10-1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. However, the specific case of the appellant- plaintiffs is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers, original Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (½) portion of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realised that the original Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That view commends to us.
...
19. In the present case, we find that the appellant-plaintiffs have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original Defendants 1 and 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original Defendants 1 and 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestral property of the appellants. We affirm the view taken by the trial court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC."
(emphasis supplied)
13. In view of the above, there was no justification for the High Court in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments itself. The High Court was also not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself. In this view of the matter the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable."
(ii) Salim D. Agboatwala v. ShamaljiOddhavji Thakkar8 "11. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy [(2015)
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR 8 SCC 331 : (2015) 4 SCC (Civ) 100], the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11.
12. Again as pointed out by a three-
Judge Bench of this Court
in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai
Thakkar [(2018) 6 SCC 422 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 524], the plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and hence the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold.
13...
14. But a defendant in a suit cannot pick up a few sentences here and there from the plaint and contend that the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the proceedings and that therefore limitation started running from the date of constructive notice. In fact, the plea of constructive notice is raised by the respondents, after asserting positively that the plaintiffs had real knowledge as well as actual notice of the proceedings. In any case, the plea of constructive notice appears to be a subsequent invention."
(iii) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India9 "6. The central question is : whether the plaint as filed by the appellant could have been rejected by invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC?
7. Indeed, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC gives ample power to the court to reject the plaint, if
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR from the averments in the plaint, it is evident that the suit is barred by any law including the law of limitation. This position is no more res integra. We may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta [(2007) 10 SCC 59]. In paras 13 to 20, the Court observed as follows : (SCC pp. 65-66) "13. As per Order 7 Rule 11, the plaint is liable to be rejected in the following cases:
'(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9;'
14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, [(2003) 1 SCC 557] it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code that:
'9. ... the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power ... at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage....' (SCC p. 560, para 9).
15. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
16. "The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful--not formal--reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, [it has to be nipped] in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC." (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467], SCC p. 468.)
17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487], only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected.
18. In Raptakos Brett & Co.
Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 was applicable.
19. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. [(2004) 3 SCC 137] this Court held thus : (SCC pp. 146-47, para 15) '15. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.'
20. For our purpose, clause (d) is relevant. It makes it clear that if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. For the said purpose, it is the duty of the person who files such an application to satisfy the court that the plaint does not disclose how the same is in time. In order to answer the said question, it is incumbent on the part of the court to verify the entire plaint. Order 7 Rule 12 mandates where a plaint is rejected, the court has to record the order to that effect with the reasons for such order."
8. On the same lines, this Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust [(2012) 8 SCC 706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612], observed as follows : (SCC pp. 713-15, paras 10-12) "10. ... It is clear from the above that where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the court has no other option except to reject the same. A reading of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR above provision also makes it clear that power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial.
11. This position was explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557], in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under : (SCC p. 560, para 9) '9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.' It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the court to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co.
Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184]
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [(2006) 3 SCC 100].
12. It is also useful to refer the judgment in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467], wherein while considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 and the duty of the trial court in considering such application, this Court has reminded the trial Judges with the following observation : (SCC p. 470, para 5) '5. ... The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful -- not formal -- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Chapter XI) and must be triggered against them.' It is clear that if the allegations are vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear right or material(s) to sue, it is the duty of the trial Judge to exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action as observed by Krishna Iyer, J. in the abovereferred decision [T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467], it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the parties under Order 10 of the Code."
14. All these events have been reiterated in Para 28 of the plaint, dealing with the cause of action for filing of the suit. Indeed, the said para opens with the expression "the cause of action to file the suit accrued in favour of the plaintiff and against
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR the defendants when the illegal recoveries were noticed and letter dated 21-7-2000 was sent to the defendants to clarify as to how the interest was being calculated". This averment cannot be read in isolation.
....
22. It is well-established position that the cause of action for filing a suit would consist of bundle of facts. Further, the factum of the suit being barred by limitation, ordinarily, would be a mixed question of fact and law. Even for that reason, invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is ruled out. In the present case, the assertion in the plaint is that the appellant verily believed that its claim was being processed by the regional office and the regional office would be taking appropriate decision at the earliest. That belief was shaken after receipt of letter from the Senior Manager of the Bank, dated 8-5-2002 followed by another letter dated 19-9-2002 to the effect that the action taken by the Bank was in accordance with the rules and the appellant need not correspond with the Bank in that regard any further. This firm response from the respondent Bank could trigger the right of the appellant to sue the respondent Bank. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had eventually sent a legal notice on 28- 11-2003 and again on 7-1-2005 and then filed the suit on 23-2-2005, is also invoked as giving rise to cause of action. Whether this plea taken by the appellant is genuine and legitimate, would be a mixed question of fact and law, depending on the response of the respondents."
13. In this backdrop, the approach of the High Court in reversing the well-reasoned order of the trial Court warrants interference. The trial Court had rightly held that the issue of limitation necessitated adjudication upon evidence, particularly in view of the appellant's assertion that the Power of Attorney executed by him did not confer any authority upon his father to alienate the suit property and that the impugned transaction came to his knowledge only at a much later point in time. In such circumstances, the determination of limitation involved disputed questions of fact that
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR could not be summarily decided without the benefit of trial. 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. For the same reasons, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are inapplicable, being factually distinguishable."
(Emphasis supplied) The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of SANGITA SINHA v. BHAWANA BHARDWAJ reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 723, to buttress his submission that once there is cancellation of agreement of sale the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. Here again there can be no qualm about the principles laid down. But, however, in the case at hand, there is no cancellation of agreement in the eye of law. It is only the intention of the defendants in the legal notice to unilaterally cancel the agreement. I iterate that the registered agreement of sale cannot be cancelled unilaterally by a stroke of pen by any party to the registered agreement of
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20178 CRP No. 568 of 2024 HC-KAR sale. It has to be by way of registered agreement to cancel.
Therefore, none of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners' merit acceptance.
10. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected, however, with a direction to the concerned Court to conclude the suit within an outer limit of six months, as it is already four years old.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30