The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Bombay High Court that had rejected a civil suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the grounds of limitation. The Apex Court reiterated the settled position that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be a ground for non-suiting a plaintiff summarily unless the bar is apparent on the face of the record.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by the original plaintiffs, restoring their suit for trial.
Background of the Case
The appellants, Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole and others, had filed Special Civil Suit No. 126/2023 before the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangamner. The suit sought a declaration of title, a permanent injunction, and the cancellation of a sale deed dated July 20, 2013.
The defendants in the suit, Rohit Enterprises and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking the rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court dismissed this application by an order dated April 8, 2024.
Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decision, the defendants approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, by filing Civil Revision Application No. 124/2024. By a judgment dated April 9, 2025, the High Court allowed the revision and rejected the plaint. The High Court opined that the suit was barred by limitation because the plaintiffs sought to invalidate a sale deed executed a decade earlier in a suit filed in 2023. Furthermore, the High Court observed that sufficient pleadings had not been made in the plaint regarding the allegation of fraud.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined the reasoning of the High Court on two primary aspects: the sufficiency of pleadings regarding fraud and the issue of limitation.
Regarding the High Court’s stance on the pleadings, the Supreme Court held:
“Insofar as the second aspect is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that it was not for the High Court to consider the merits of the case as per the averments in the plaint.”
On the issue of limitation, the Bench relied on established legal principles, stating:
“As regards the first aspect, it is well settled that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and unless the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non-suiting a plaintiff.”
The Court noted that the plaintiffs had specifically averred in their plaint that the cause of action arose in October 2023. According to the plaintiffs, this was when “defendant No. 1 started quarreling with them for the first time, showing his true colors by trying to grab the suit properties and interfering with their peaceful possession over the same.”
The Apex Court found that the High Court had erred in disregarding these specific averments and summarily concluding that there was a delay of 10 years. The Bench observed:
“In the light of this averment, the High Court clearly erred in jumping to the conclusion that there was a delay of 10 years on the part of the plaintiffs in assailing the sale deed executed in the year 2013. The High Court lost sight of the fact that it was the plaintiffs’ case that the said sale deed was only a sham and was coupled with a development agreement executed on the same day.”
The Court emphasized that these claims—that the transaction was a sham coupled with a development agreement—were “issues that required to be examined on evidence and could not have been summarily rejected by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.”
Decision
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court dated April 9, 2025.
The Court ordered the restoration of Special Civil Suit No. 126/2023 to the file of the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangamner.
Acknowledging that the proceedings had been delayed, the Bench directed:
“The trial Court may endeavour to expedite the trial and hearing in the suit, given the fact that proceedings therein have already been delayed.”
The Supreme Court further clarified that the Trial Court must decide the case “on its own merits in accordance with law and on the strength of the evidence produced before it, uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court and this Court.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole & Ors. vs. Rohit Enterprises & Ors.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 16809/2025
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
