Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the appellant - plaintiff and learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore with learned advocate Mr. P. J Kanabar for the respondents- defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 36 of 1999.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the order under Order VII Rule 11(a) and

(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short "the Code") below application Exh. 205 and Order in application Exh. 243 under Order 47 Rule 1 read with section 151 as well as order below Exh 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 36 of 1999 rejecting the suit passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli, the appellant-original plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is strongly of the opinion that present suit deserves to be rejected under the provisions of 0.7 R.11 (a) & (d) of the Code and hence, applications under Order 7, Rule 11(a) &

(d) and under Order-47, Rule-1 r/w. Section 151 of the Code deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order is passed under Exhs.205, 243 and Exh. 1:-

::ORDER::

(1) Application at Exh.243 moved under Order-47, Rule-1 r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is hereby allowed.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4234/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023 undefined (2) Application at Exh.205 moved under Order 7, Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is also allowed.

(3) Present suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 36/1999 is hereby rejected under Order 7. Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. (4) Copy of this order shall be kept along with the plaint of the suit."

11. On perusal of the above conclusion the only observation made by the Trial Court is that when the suit and plaint itself declares that it is barred by law and specifically by law of limitation and provision of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, it cannot be allowed to continue. However, while arriving at such conclusion the Trial Court has failed to consider the facts emerging from the plaint and the documents annexed therewith to the effect that the subsequent events from 1983 till the date of filing of the suit reflected from the averments and documents annexed with the plaint clearly shows that Agreement for Sale which is sought to be enforced under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitation requires leading of evidence as it involves the mixed question of facts as well as law inasmuch as merely on bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint and the documents NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4234/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023 undefined annexed therewith, the Court could not have come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code.