The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, even where limitation appears to bar certain claims. The judgment underscores the procedural rigour required when invoking threshold rejections and clarifies that mixed questions of law and fact - such as limitation - cannot justify wholesale dismissal unless the plaint is patently barred on its face.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Pritam Chauhan, filed a civil suit seeking declaration that five sale deeds executed in favour of eight petitioners (defendants No. 1 to 10) were null and void, on the ground that the sale consideration had never been paid. The respondent claimed to be the absolute owner of land in Village Sihi, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurugram, and alleged that the sale deeds dated 17.05.2013, 29.05.2013, 06.09.2013, and 13.01.2014 were executed under false assurances of payment. He further alleged that despite repeated demands, no payment was made, and the petitioners had begun negotiating the sale of the land to third parties.
Key Facts
- The respondent executed five sale deeds between 17.05.2013 and 13.01.2014 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 10, covering a total of 2 kanals 13 marlas of land.
- The sale deeds purportedly recorded consideration amounts totaling Rs. 80,79,500, with payments allegedly made via cheque, cash, and RTGS.
- The respondent claimed receipt of only Rs. 15,00,000 via RTGS on 19.07.2013, with the balance of Rs. 65,79,500 unpaid.
- The petitioners, defendants No. 1 to 8, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of limitation and non-disclosure of cause of action.
- Defendants No. 9 to 15 did not join the application for rejection.
- The respondent alleged that the cause of action arose in May 2023, when the petitioners refused payment and filed a criminal complaint against him, and again in August 2023, when he filed his own criminal complaint.
Procedural History
- 17.05.2013: First sale deed executed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3.
- 29.05.2013: Second sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 8.
- 06.09.2013: Third sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 9.
- 13.01.2014: Fourth sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 10.
- May 2023: Petitioners filed criminal complaint against respondent.
- August 2023: Respondent filed criminal complaint against petitioners.
- 2024: Civil suit filed (Annexure P-4) seeking declaration of sale deeds as void, permanent injunction, and restraint on receipt of enhanced compensation.
- 18.05.2024: Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, dismissed petitioners’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- 18.03.2026: Revision petition dismissed by Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners (Defendants No. 1 to 8)
- Argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act (3 years from date of cause of action).
- Claimed that the entire sale consideration was paid to Rakshak Welfare Housing Society, the alleged mediator.
- Contended that the respondent’s inaction for over ten years rendered his claim unbelievable and mala fide.
- Asserted that the plaint was a product of clever drafting and should be rejected at threshold.
For the Respondent (Plaintiff)
- Maintained that the cause of action arose only in May 2023, when the petitioners refused payment and initiated criminal proceedings.
- Argued that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be decided on the face of the plaint.
- Stated that the plaint sought multiple reliefs, including permanent injunction, which cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- Emphasized that only eight of fifteen defendants filed the application; rejection cannot be partial.
Relief Sought
The respondent sought:
- Declaration that the five sale deeds are null and void.
- Permanent injunction restraining petitioners from alienating, transferring, or mortgaging the suit land.
- Declaration that revenue records based on the sale deeds are void.
- Restraint on petitioners receiving enhanced compensation from acquisition authorities.
- Direction to deposit any compensation received pending verification.
The Legal Issue
Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation when the cause of action is alleged to have arisen recently, despite the sale deeds being executed over a decade earlier, and when the application for rejection is filed only by some of the defendants?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioners relied on T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, and Pathupati Subba Reddy to argue that the suit was manifestly barred by limitation. They contended that the respondent’s decade-long silence negated any claim of ignorance or delay, and that the plaint was a tool of blackmail. They asserted that limitation, even if a mixed question, could be decided at threshold when the facts on the face of the plaint clearly showed the suit was time-barred. They further argued that the plaint was defective for failing to disclose a cause of action.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent, through Senior Advocate Ashish Aggarwal, relied on Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole, and Sri Boyenepally Srijayavardhan to argue that Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not permit partial rejection of a plaint. He emphasized that the relief of permanent injunction, which requires evidence and adjudication of possession and threat of irreparable harm, cannot be decided at threshold. He further contended that since defendants No. 9 to 15 had not joined the application, rejecting the plaint against only eight defendants would violate settled law.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by recalling the settled principle that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint and annexed documents may be considered; no external evidence or affidavits are admissible for this purpose (Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal). The Court then turned to the central issue: whether limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, could justify rejection of the plaint.
The Court cited Kulabandhu Ram Adarsh Sharma v. Nam Estates Private Limited and Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole & Ors. v. Rohit Enterprises & Ors., where the Supreme Court held that limitation cannot be the basis for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless it is patently and unequivocally clear from the plaint itself. The Court observed:
"Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and unless the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-suiting the plaintiff."
The Court noted that the respondent pleaded the cause of action arose in May 2023, when the petitioners refused payment and filed a criminal complaint. This allegation, though contested, could not be dismissed as frivolous on the face of the plaint. The Court further held that the respondent’s delay in filing the suit did not, by itself, render the plaint defective under Rule 11, as the plea of limitation required adjudication of facts beyond the pleadings.
Crucially, the Court addressed the issue of partial rejection. Citing Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy and Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants, the Court held:
"A plaint cannot be rejected in part. The principle is well established and has been continuously followed since 1936."
Since only eight of fifteen defendants had filed the application, and the plaint sought relief against all defendants - including those who had not joined the application - the Court held that partial rejection was impermissible. The Court further noted that the prayer for permanent injunction, which involved assessment of possession, threat of irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, was not a matter for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The Court concluded that while the petitioners’ arguments raised serious questions, they did not meet the high threshold required for rejection at the threshold stage. The trial court’s refusal to reject the plaint was therefore correct.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dated 18.05.2024 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, which refused to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The suit shall proceed to trial, where issues of limitation, payment of consideration, and validity of the sale deeds shall be adjudicated on evidence. The Court directed that all pending applications in the suit stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Plaint Cannot Be Partially Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Practitioners must file applications for rejection against all defendants jointly; partial rejection is legally impermissible.
- If one defendant seeks rejection and others do not, the entire plaint must survive unless all defendants join the application.
- Courts must reject the plaint wholly or not at all - no bifurcation is permitted.
Limitation Is Not a Threshold Ground Unless Patently Clear
- A plea of limitation under Order VII Rule 11 CPC will fail if the cause of action is plausibly alleged to have arisen recently, even if the underlying transaction is old.
- Delay alone does not equate to limitation bar; the plaint must clearly show the suit is time-barred on its face.
- Courts must avoid using Order VII Rule 11 CPC as a shortcut to dispose of complex factual disputes.
Permanent Injunction Claims Are Not Rejection-Ready
- Prayers for permanent injunction, especially those involving possession, threat of alienation, or interference with revenue records, require full trial.
- Such reliefs cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC even if other claims appear weak.
- Practitioners should frame such prayers carefully to ensure the plaint survives threshold scrutiny.
