2005 (11) TMI 510 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Declines to Clarify 'Barred by Law' in Order 7 Rule 11(d), Remands Case for Fact-Based Disposal.

The SC declined to decide whether 'barred by law' under Order 7 Rule 11(d) includes limitation, deeming it academic for this case. The matter was remanded ... Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) - barred by limitation - Suit for a declaration - acquisition of Schedule 'B' property - seeking injunction - instead of filing the written statement filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint - HELD THAT:- After hearing counsel for the parties, going through the plaint, application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) Civil Procedure Code and the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of an issue of limitation and taking of evidence. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Ex facie in the present case on the reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time. The findings recorded by the High Court touching upon the merits of the dispute are set aside but the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is affirmed. We agree with the view taken by the trial court that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. The interim stay granted by this Court staying the further proceedings of the trial court is vacated. The parties are relegated to contest the suit. The appellant is permitted to file the written statement within thirty days from today. It shall be open to the appellant to raise any plea available to it under the law including the plea of limitation, maintainability of the suit, etc. The plaintiff-respondents would also be at liberty to file the replication to the written statement, if any, within fifteen days of receipt of the copy of the written statement. The trial Court shall decide the points/issues raised in the suit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order or that of the High Court or the trial Court. Since the suit is pending for the last four years, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Issues:Validity of property acquisition, legality of sale deed, injunction application, rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, conflict of judgments on limitation, interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11(d).Analysis:1. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit challenging the acquisition of Schedule 'B' property and a sale deed for Schedule 'D' property. An injunction application was made to prevent alienation or construction on Schedule 'D'. The appellant sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. The trial court dismissed the application, upheld by the Single Judge.2. The appeal was filed against the High Court's order. Arguments revolved around whether a plaint can be rejected if it is time-barred. Reference was made to conflicting judgments on the applicability of Order 7 Rule 11(d) in cases of limitation.3. The Supreme Court noted the conflicting opinions and referred the question of whether 'barred by law' includes limitation to a larger Bench. Both parties agreed that the decision in this case hinged on its specific facts regarding limitation.4. The Bench found the question referred was academic for this case and declined to decide it. The matter was sent back for disposal based on the case's facts. The Court emphasized that a suit cannot be dismissed as time-barred without proper pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence on limitation.5. The Court held that the present suit could not be dismissed as time-barred based on the pleadings and evidence. The High Court's findings on the dispute's merits were set aside, but its conclusion was affirmed. The trial court's view that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) was agreed upon.6. The interim stay on trial proceedings was lifted, and parties were directed to contest the suit. The appellant was given thirty days to file a written statement, including raising any legal pleas. The trial court was instructed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the suit within a year.This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues addressed in the judgment, including the interpretation of relevant laws, conflicting judgments, and the specific application of legal principles to the case at hand.