Appeal Dismissed: Court Upholds Rejection of Plaint for Circumventing Limitations and Rules; Costs Imposed on Appellants.

The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the HC's decision to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court found the plaint was crafted to circumvent limitations and court fees, and the suit was barred by limitations and procedural rules. Costs were imposed on the appellants for pursuing a meritless suit.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the trial court and the High Court were correct in holding that the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was liable to rejection.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiffs appealed questioning the rejection of their plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The High Court reversed the first appellate court's decision, upholding the trial court's rejection.

2. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the plaint did establish a cause of action, contrary to the High Court's ruling. The court examined the contents of the plaint and found it crafted to circumvent limitations and court fees, justifying rejection under Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC.

3. The plaint detailed a loan transaction secured by a registered sale deed, with subsequent promises of re-conveyance. The court noted the clever drafting to avoid limitations and fees, justifying rejection under the law.

4. The cause of action for seeking a reconveyance deed arose in 1987, as per the plaint's allegations. The plaintiffs also mentioned prior legal actions related to the property.

5. The foundation of the suit was the alleged loan transaction disguised as a sale deed, with subsequent promises of re-conveyance. The court highlighted the need for specific reliefs based on the facts presented.

6. The court emphasized that the mutation proceedings did not provide a fresh cause of action and seemed intended to bypass limitations. The suit's foundation remained the alleged loan transaction and re-conveyance agreement.

7. The court noted that the second suit indirectly sought relief already covered in a prior pending suit, potentially violating procedural rules.

8. After thorough examination, the court concluded that the suit was barred by limitations, the Specific Relief Act, and procedural rules, justifying rejection.

9. Citing precedent, the court emphasized the importance of nipping meritless suits early and imposed costs on the appellants for prolonging a barred suit.

10. The appeal was dismissed, with costs to be borne by the appellants, including additional costs for pursuing a meritless suit to the Supreme Court.

---