MANU/SC/0318/2022

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2022(232)AIC 23, AIR2022SC 1519, 2022(3)ALD21, 2022 (152) ALR 204, 2022(3)BLJ1, 2022(6)BomC R207, 2022 (2)
C C C 263 , 2022(2)C ivilC C (S.C .), 2022(2)IC C 750, 2022 INSC 300, 2022(2)JKJ225[SC ], 2022(4)MhLj239, (2022)3MLJ359, 2022(3)MPLJ1, 2022 156
RD297, (2022)7SC C 731, [2022]3SC R302

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1848 of 2022
Decided On: 14.03.2022
Biswanath Banik and Ors. Vs. Sulanga Bose and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ankur Sood, AOR, Romila Mandal and Arnab Chatterjee,
Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Suman Kumar Dutt, Manju Bhuteria, Advs. and Pawanshree
Agrawal, AOR
Case Category:
ORDINARY CIVIL MATTER - MATTERS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
CONTRACT
Case Note:
Civil - Maintainability of suit - Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) - The original Plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal against
impugned judgment passed by the High Court by which the High Court has
quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to reject
the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and
consequently has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC mainly
on the ground that the suit is 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 - Whether suit is
barred by limitation?
Facts:
Present appeal is against impugned judgment rejecting the plaint on the
ground that the suit is barred by limitation as well as the suit for a
declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act
would not be maintainable against the original owner. The Appellants has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
High Court has erred in allowing the application Under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC and rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by
limitation. It is submitted that while holding that the suit would be barred by
limitation, the High Court has not at all considered the entire suit averments
and has not considered the averments in the plaint as a whole.
Held, while allowing the appeal

09-07-2024 (Page 1 of 7) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

1. 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) of 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. As observed
and held by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta
and Ors., rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC by reading
only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the
plaint is impermissible. [7]
2. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 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. [7.1]
3. 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. The
plaint cannot be rejected partially. Even otherwise, the reliefs sought are
interconnected. Whether the Plaintiffs shall be entitled to any relief under
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or not has to be considered at the
time of trial, but at this stage it cannot be said that the suit for the relief
sought Under Section 53A would not be maintainable at all and therefore the
plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC. [7.4]
4. The High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and rejecting the plaint. The High Court has
exceeded in its jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint while exercising the powers
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts. [8]
5. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the
C.O. and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the trial court
refusing to reject the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and consequently
rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is quashed and set aside.
The application submitted by the original Defendants to reject the plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC stands dismissed. The order passed by the
trial court stands restored. Now, the trial to proceed further in accordance
with law and on its own merits. Appeal allowed. [9]

JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No. 1417 of 2017 by which the High Court has

09-07-2024 (Page 2 of 7) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

allowed the said petition and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial
court refusing to reject the plaint in exercise of powers Under Order VII Rule 11 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and consequently has rejected the plaint Under Order VII
Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure mainly on the ground that the suit is 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, the original
Plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
2.1 That the Respondents herein - original Plaintiffs had instituted a Title Suit
No. 166 of 2010 against the Respondents herein (original Defendants) in the
Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sealdah. The Plaintiffs in the suit prayed for
the following reliefs:
a) For declaration of right, title interest in the suit property and for
confirmation of Plaintiff's possession as part performance of contract
dated 28.4.1995 as provided Under Section 53A of the T.P. Act.
aa) for enforcement of the agreement dated 28.4.1995 directing the
Principal Defendant to execute and register Deed of conveyance in
favour of the Plaintiffs;
b) For a decree for permanent order of injunction restraining the
aforesaid Defendant and his men and agent from causing any
interference and/or any obstruction to the peaceful enjoyment and
possession of the suit property and further restraining the Defendant
from making any attempt to dispossess the Plaintiffs forcefully and
illegally from the suit property;
c) For temporary injunction with ad-interim Rule on similar effect in
terms of prayer (b);
xxxxxxxxxx
2.2 Having served with the suit notice, the Defendants submitted an application
before the trial court requesting to reject the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11
Code of Civil Procedure 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. That the trial court
rejected the said application and refused to reject the plaint in exercise of
powers Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial court
refusing to reject the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure,
the original Defendants preferred revision application/application before the
High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed
and set aside the order passed by the trial court and consequently has allowed
the application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure and has
rejected the plaint 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 against the actual owner.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order

09-07-2024 (Page 3 of 7) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

 passed by the High Court allowing the application Under Order VII Rule 11
Code of Civil Procedure and rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is
barred by limitation as well as the suit for a declaration simpliciter Under
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable against
the original owner, the original Plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
3 . Shri Ankur Sood, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court
has erred in allowing the application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure
and rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. It is
submitted that while holding that the suit would be barred by limitation, the High Court
has not at all considered the entire suit averments and has not considered the
averments in the plaint as a whole.
3.1. It is contended that as per the averments in the plaint, the cause of action had
arisen on 10.08.2010/24.08.2010 on which date the advertisement was given in the
newspapers with an intent to transfer the property by a third party. It is submitted that
as such in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the issue with
respect to limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the High Court
ought not to have rejected the plaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
3.2. It is further submitted that the High Court has not at all properly appreciated the
fact that the Plaintiffs claimed the relief in the suit invoking Section 53A of the Transfer
of Property Act and also prayed for the relief of permanent injunction. It is urged that
whether the Plaintiffs would succeed in getting the relief/reliefs Under Section 53A of
the Transfer of Property Act would have to be considered at the time of trial. It is
submitted that however, it cannot be said that a suit for declaration Under Section 53A
of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable at all.
3.3. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Ors., MANU/SC/3911/2007 : (2007)
10 SCC 59, it is vehemently submitted that in the present case, the High Court has
exceeded its jurisdiction to reject the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil
Procedure.
4 . Shri Suman Kumar Dutt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original
Defendants has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
4.1. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has
not committed any error in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by
limitation. It is contended that even according to the Plaintiffs the cause of action had
arisen in the year 2004 as averred in paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is submitted that
therefore when the cause of action had arisen in the month of April/May, 2004 and
when the suit was filed in the year 2010, the same is clearly barred by law of limitation.
It is submitted that when once the suit was barred by limitation, the same is liable to be
rejected Under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure.
4.2. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Motor Co. v. U.A.
Basrurkar MANU/SC/0139/1968 : AIR 1968 SC 794 in which this Court relied upon the
Privy Council judgment, it is submitted that the suit for a declaration simpliciter Under
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable. It is urged that
the High Court has not committed any error in allowing the application Under Order VII
Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure and in rejecting the plaint.

09-07-2024 (Page 4 of 7) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at
length.
6 . At the outset, it is required to be noted that the trial court rejected the application
Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure and refused to reject the plaint.
However, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has set aside the order
passed by the trial court and allowed the application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of
Civil Procedure and has rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by
limitation as well as the suit for a declaration simpliciter Under Section 53A of the
Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable.
7 . Now, so far as the issue whether the suit can be said to be barred by limitation or
not, at this stage, what is required to be considered is the averments in 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) Code of Civil Procedure
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. As observed and held by this Court in the case
of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra), rejection of a plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) Code of
Civil Procedure by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant
parts of the plaint is impermissible. In the said decision, in paragraph 21, it is observed
and held as under:
2 1 . As observed earlier, before passing an order in an application filed for
rejection of the plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11(d), it is but proper to verify the
entire plaint averments. The abovementioned materials clearly show that the
decree passed in Suit No. 183 of 1974 came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff in
the year 1986, when Suit No. 424 of 1989 titled Assema Architect v. Ram
Prakash was filed in which a copy of the earlier decree was placed on record
and thereafter he took steps at the earliest and filed the suit for declaration and
in the alternative for possession. It is not in dispute that as per Article 59 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, a suit ought to have been filed within a period of three
years from the date of the knowledge. The knowledge mentioned in the plaint
cannot be termed as inadequate and incomplete as observed by the High Court.
While deciding the application Under Order 7 Rule 11, few lines or passage
should not be read in isolation and the pleadings have to be read as a whole to
ascertain its true import. We are of the view that both the trial court as well as
the High Court failed to advert to the relevant averments as stated in the plaint.
7.1. From the aforesaid decision and even otherwise as held by this Court in a catena of
decisions, while considering an application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil
Procedure, 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.
7.2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra)
to the facts of the case on hand and on going through the entire plaint averments, it
cannot be said at this stage that the suit is barred by limitation on the face of it. The
necessary averments in the plaint on the cause of action are in paragraphs 6, 7 and 10,
which read as under:
6 . That the aforesaid Defendant now consequent upon the escalation of the
land value of the area has been more aggrieve to drive out the Plaintiffs from

09-07-2024 (Page 5 of 7) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

 the suit property by hook and crook and various insertion in the newspapers
dated 10.8.2010, 24.8.2010 at the Ananda Bazar Patrika and on 22.8.2010 at
The Telegraph, coming up from the different parts with intent to purchase and
get transfer of the property by the third party.
7. That the aforesaid Defendant and his men and agent concretely on 29.8.2010
tried to forcefully enter into the suit property and manhandle the "Durwan" but
owing to the resistance the Defendant did not succeed in their attempt to
dispossess, but Defendant with his associate is determined to dispossess the
Plaintiffs from his lawful possession by any means even by using force and
violence. That the proforma Defendants have made parties in the suit without
any claim against them but for proper adjudication of the said matter.
10. That the cause of action for this suit arose on 29.08.2010 at Premises No.
3/3A, formerly 3, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata-
700067, which is within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Court.
7.3. In the present case, while holding that the suit is barred by limitation, the High
Court has considered only the averments made in paragraph 4 and has not considered
the entire plaint averments.
7.4. While rejecting the plaint, the High Court has also observed and held that the suit
for a declaration simpliciter Under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act against
the original owner would not be maintainable and for that reliance is placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Motor Company (supra). However, it is
required to be noted that even the Plaintiffs have also prayed for the decree for a
permanent injunction claiming to be in possession and the declaration and permanent
injunction as such invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 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. It is the settled proposition of law that the plaint cannot be rejected partially.
Even otherwise, the reliefs sought are interconnected. Whether the Plaintiffs shall be
entitled to any relief Under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or not has to be
considered at the time of trial, but at this stage it cannot be said that the suit for the
relief sought Under Section 53A would not be maintainable at all and therefore the
plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of powers Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of
Civil Procedure.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the High Court has committed
a grave error in allowing the application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil
Procedure and rejecting the plaint. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in
rejecting the plaint while exercising the powers Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil
Procedure. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts.
9 . For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the C.O. and quashing and
setting aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to reject the plaint Under Order
VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure and consequently rejecting the plaint Under Order

09-07-2024 (Page 6 of 7) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure is hereby quashed and set aside. The application
submitted by the original Defendants to reject the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 Code
of Civil Procedure stands dismissed. The order passed by the trial court stands restored.
Now, the trial to proceed further in accordance with law and on its own merits.
However, it is observed that whatever observations are made by this Court in the
present order shall be confined to deciding the application Under Order VII Rule 11
Code of Civil Procedure only and the trial court to finally decide and dispose of the suit
in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence led.
Present appeal is allowed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

09-07-2024 (Page 7 of 7) www.manupatra.com Nirma University