Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2021 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1513 - SUPREME COURTRejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - rejection on the ground that the suit filed in the year 1987 challenging the action of the competent authorities under the Act carried out way back in 1963 and 1964 was hopelessly barred by limitation - bar under Section 85 of the Act on the jurisdiction of Civil Court. Rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Plaintiffs assert in no uncertain terms that notices were never ordered to them nor served on them. Therefore, the answer to the issue regarding limitation, will depend upon the evidence with regard to the issuance and service of notice and the knowledge of the Plaintiffs. Hence, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not right in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation, especially in the facts and circumstances of this case. As observed by this Court in P.V. GURU RAJ REDDY AND ORS. VERSUS P. NEERADHA REDDY AND ORS. [2015 (2) TMI 1363 - SUPREME COURT], the rejection of plaint Under Order VII 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 VII Rule 11. The City Civil Court as well as the High Court refused to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 85-A of the Act, on the short ground that the same could be invoked only in cases where the issues covered by the Act have not already been settled, decided or dealt with by an authority competent under the Act to do so. Supporting the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court, it is contended by Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, learned Counsel for some of the contesting Respondents that as against the orders passed Under Section 32-G and 32-M, an alternative remedy of appeal is provided under Clauses (mb) and (n) of Sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act. The Collector is the appellate authority Under Section 74. The Civil Court was obliged to see at least whether the appointment of a Receiver for the administration of the Estate of a deceased person would actually fall within the mandate of Clause(d) of Sub-section(1) of Section 88-B. The Trial Court as well as the High Court were clearly in error in rejecting the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) - Appeal allowed.
|