Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another  has held that While limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence, in cases where it is glaringly obvious from the plaint that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, courts should not hesitate to grant relief rather than sending parties back to the Trial Court.   

What was the Background of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another Case?  

• A civil suit was filed by Respondent No. 1 claiming ownership and possession of certain suit properties in Maharashtra. 
• The basis of Respondent No. 1's claim was that he is a direct descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj from the Bhonsale Dynasty and had inherited vast lands across Maharashtra from his ancestors. 
• The Appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) r/w Article 58, 59 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds that the suit was barred by limitation. 
• The Trial Court initially rejected the Appellants' application stating that limitation is a mixed question of facts and law requiring evidence. 
• Following this, the Appellants filed a Civil Revision Application before the Bombay High Court, which remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. 
• Upon fresh consideration, the Trial Court again rejected the Appellants' application maintaining that limitation required evidence to be led by parties. 
• Historical facts reveal that approximately 3/4th of the property in question was sold to the Appellant through a Court action in 1938, before Respondent No. 1's birth, and the remaining portion was transferred through a registered sale deed in 1952. 
• Respondent No. 1 claimed that he acquired title over the properties through government resolutions issued in 1980 and 1984. 
• Aggrieved by the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court the present appeal has been filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • On Review of Plaint Averments: 
    • The Court emphasized that when considering an application to reject a plaint, only the averments in the plaint and its annexed documents should be examined. 
    • The Court cannot look into the written statement or documents filed by defendants. 
    • Civil Courts, including the Supreme Court, cannot examine rival contentions at this stage. 
  • On the Plaintiff's Claims: 
    • The Court found that Respondent No. 1's averments were baseless and vague statements. 
    • These statements were not substantiated by evidence. 
    • The Court determined they were clearly crafted to create a cause of action. 
  • On the Issue of Limitation: 
    • The Court noted this was not a case involving recently discovered forgery or fabrication. 
    • The plaintiff and his predecessors failed to take timely steps to assert their title and rights. 
    • The alleged cause of action was found to be fictional. 
    • The Court observed that as a prudent person, the plaintiff should have initiated necessary steps to protect his interest after the government resolutions of 1980 and 1984. 
  • On Lower Courts' Approach: 
    • The Court found that the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC 
    • The High Court erred in keeping the question of limitation open for trial court consideration 
    • The Courts should have decided the core issue based on the plaint averments as mandated by Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. 
  • On the Spirit of Order VII Rule 11(d): 
    • The Court emphasized that the intention of this provision is to allow Courts to "nip in the bud" any litigation that clearly appears to be an abuse of process. 
    • The Court observed that reluctance to apply this provision causes harm to defendants by forcing them to undergo the ordeal of leading evidence. 
    • The Court held that such plaints should be rejected at the threshold itself. 
  • On Title and Possession: 
    • The Court held that since the title claim was barred by limitation, the claim for possession was also consequently barred. 
    • The relief of recovery of possession was deemed "hopelessly barred by limitation." 
• The Supreme Court based on the above observations held that: 
  • While limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence, in cases where it is glaringly obvious from the plaint that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, courts should not hesitate to grant relief rather than sending parties back to the Trial Court. 
  • The plaint was liable to be rejected at the threshold. 
  • Both the title claim, and possession claim of the plaintiff were barred by limitation. 
  • The relief for recovery of possession was hopelessly time-barred. 
  • The Court emphasized that Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is intended to allow courts to stop clearly abusive litigation at an early stage, rather than forcing defendants through unnecessary evidence proceedings. 
  • The Court determined that when a plaint shows clear limitation issues, it should be rejected at the outset rather than proceeding to trial. 

What is Order VII Rule 11 of CPC? 

• Rule 11 of Order VII deals with the Rejection of Plaint. It states that - 
  • The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: 
  • Where it does not disclose a cause of action. 
  • Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. 
  • Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. 
  • Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 
  • Where it is not filed in duplicate. 
  • Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of the rule.