Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Limitation as Mixed Question of Law and Fact Cannot Be Decided on Pleadings Alone: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that a suit cannot be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation when the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and disputed. The judgment underscores that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, and courts must not prejudge credibility at the threshold stage.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The plaintiff, Rajesh Kumar, filed Original Suit No. 863 of 2020 seeking two reliefs: (i) declaration that a Will dated 17.8.1998 executed by his late father, Ramkrishan Sharma, is forged and void; and (ii) declaration that a memorandum of oral family settlement dated 25.4.2006 is valid and binding on all parties. The defendants, including the plaintiff’s brother Rakesh Kumar Sharma, opposed the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

Key Facts

• The plaintiff and defendants are siblings; the deceased father, Ramkrishan Sharma, died on 2.12.2005; the mother, Kamal Rani Sharma, died on 17.9.1991.
• The disputed properties include two plots: Property No. 1 (purchased in 1962) and Property No. 2 (purchased in 1967 in the name of Durga Prasad, maternal uncle).
• A family business, Vishal Cinema, was operated from Property No. 2, with the plaintiff, his father, and defendant no. 1 as partners.
• On 21.9.1976, Property No. 2 and an adjacent 245 sq. yard plot were transferred to Vishal Enterprises.
• On 17.12.1976, the 245 sq. yard plot was sold to defendant no. 2, Dinesh Kumar Sharma.
• An oral family settlement was allegedly made on 31.12.2003 and reduced to writing on 25.4.2006, allocating equal shares of Property No. 1 and Property No. 2 among the siblings.
• The plaintiff claims he first learned of the alleged Will dated 17.8.1998 on 7.10.2020, when defendant no. 1 disclosed its existence.
• The plaintiff obtained a certified copy of the Will from the Registrar’s office on 13.10.2020.
• The suit was filed on 7.12.2020, within three years of this date.
• The plaintiff denies ever receiving any notice of the Will in 1998 and alleges the Will is forged, benami, and executed when the testator was mentally infirm.
• The defendant claims the plaintiff received a registered notice of the Will on 5.9.1998, and a reply was sent by the plaintiff’s counsel on 6.10.1998.

Procedural History

• 17.8.1998: Alleged Will executed by Ramkrishan Sharma.
• 5.9.1998: Defendant claims to have sent registered notice of the Will to the plaintiff.
• 6.10.1998: Plaintiff’s counsel, Sheel Kumar Garg, allegedly replied to the notice.
• 25.4.2006: Memorandum of oral family settlement recorded.
• 2.12.2005: Death of Ramkrishan Sharma.
• 7.10.2020: Plaintiff claims to have learned of the Will from defendant no. 1.
• 13.10.2020: Plaintiff obtained certified copy of the Will from Registrar’s office.
• 7.12.2020: Suit filed in Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC, Bulandshahr.
• 19.7.2022: Trial court framed issues, including whether the suit was barred by limitation (Issue No. 3) and whether it was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Issue No. 7).
• 15.11.2025: Trial court allowed defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint, holding the suit barred by limitation since knowledge of the Will was acquired in 1998.
• 25.03.2026: First Appeal No. 44 of 2026 decided by the Allahabad High Court.

The Parties' Positions

Plaintiff (Appellant): Asserted he had no knowledge of the Will until 7.10.2020; suit filed within limitation; the Will is forged; the family settlement is valid; the trial court erred by relying on defendant’s documents and alleged admissions.

Defendant (Respondent): Claimed plaintiff received notice of the Will in 1998; the reply from counsel constituted admission; the suit is time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act; the family settlement is unregistered, unstamped, and unenforced.

Relief Sought

The plaintiff sought:

• A declaratory decree declaring the Will dated 17.8.1998 void and ineffective.
• A declaration that the memorandum of family settlement dated 25.4.2006 is valid and binding.
• Costs and directions to the Registrar to cancel the Will’s registration.

The Legal Issue

Can a trial court reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation when the plaintiff specifically pleads that knowledge of the impugned document was acquired only at a later date, and no oral evidence has been recorded?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The appellant’s counsel, Sr. Advocate Mohit Kumar Shukla, argued that Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits examination only of the plaint and documents annexed thereto. The trial court erred by relying on the defendant’s application, written statement, and alleged postal receipts to conclude that the plaintiff had knowledge of the Will in 1998. The denial in the plaintiff’s objection paper was categorical and not an admission. The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence, and cannot be decided at the threshold. Reliance was placed on Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia (2025 INSC 772), Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood (2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459), Daliben Valjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4105), and P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 975).

For the Respondent

The respondent’s counsel contended that the plaintiff’s objection paper contained a vague denial of the 1998 notice, which amounted to an admission under Order VIII Rule 5 and Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defendant had filed documentary evidence of the registered notice and reply, which the trial court was entitled to consider. The suit was clearly barred by limitation under Article 59, as the Will was executed in 1998 and the plaintiff had knowledge then. Reliance was placed on Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co. (1964 AIR SC 538) and Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust (2010) 4 SCC 753.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the Apex Court’s jurisprudence on Order VII Rule 11 CPC, emphasizing that rejection of a plaint is a drastic remedy to be exercised only when the plaint, on its face, discloses no cause of action or is barred by limitation. The Court held that the trial court committed a fundamental error by examining the defendant’s documents and written statement to determine the plaintiff’s knowledge of the Will.

"The court has not to examine the written statement of the defendant or the documents submitted by it. Further, the court has also not to examine the plaintiff’s case on merit to determine whether he is going to succeed or not."

The Court noted that the plaintiff’s plaint specifically pleaded that he became aware of the Will only on 7.10.2020, and the suit was filed within three years thereafter. The defendant’s claim of prior notice and the alleged reply from counsel were denied by the plaintiff and were not admitted. The Court held that such a dispute over the date of knowledge cannot be resolved without evidence.

"At this preliminary stage, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true. Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily."

The Court further rejected the respondent’s reliance on Badat & Co. and Karam Kapahi, clarifying that Order XII Rule 6 applies to admissions made during trial or in pleadings, not to objections filed against an Order VII Rule 11 application. The objection paper is not a pleading under Order VI Rule 1 CPC, and a categorical denial cannot be construed as an admission.

The Court also observed that the trial court had framed Issue No. 3 on limitation, which remained undecided, and yet proceeded to decide the same under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - a clear violation of procedural law. The trial court’s reliance on documents not part of the plaint rendered its order perverse and legally unsustainable.

The Verdict

The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.11.2025 were set aside. The plaint in O.S. No. 863 of 2020 was restored. The defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. The trial court was directed to decide the suit on merits within six months from the date of production of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments. Costs were awarded to the appellant. A copy of the order was sent to the Judicial Officer Archana Singh for mandatory training at the Judicial Training and Research Institute, Lucknow.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Limitation Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence

• Practitioners must argue that any plea of limitation based on alleged knowledge must be tested through evidence, not pleadings alone.
• A plaintiff’s denial of prior knowledge, even if weak, is sufficient to prevent rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• Courts must not infer knowledge from circumstantial documents submitted by defendants.

Plaintiffs Must Specifically Plead Date of Knowledge

• Always plead the exact date when the plaintiff became aware of the impugned document or transaction.
• Avoid vague language; use precise dates and circumstances (e.g., "on 7.10.2020, defendant disclosed the Will to me").
• Annex any documents obtained upon discovery (e.g., certified copy of Will) to strengthen the claim of late knowledge.

Trial Courts Must Not Pre-Judge Credibility

• Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not a mini-trial; courts must assume plaintiff’s averments as true unless they are inherently impossible or contradicted by undisputed documents.
• Documents from the defendant cannot be used to discredit the plaintiff’s case at the threshold.
• If a triable issue arises - even if the claim appears improbable - the suit must proceed to trial.