Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that when limitation involves disputed facts and mixed questions of fact and law, it cannot be decided at the Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) stage and must proceed to trial. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant, P. Kumarakurubaran, was assigned a vacant site by the Special Tahsildar, Saidapet, Tamil Nadu in 1974, where he constructed a house and paid taxes. 
• The appellant executed a Power of Attorney in 1978 in favor of his father, K. Pothikannu Pillai, for the purposes of construction and related activities, but not for property alienation. 
• Contrary to the restricted scope of authority, the appellant's father executed a sale deed in 1988 in favor of the second respondent (appellant's granddaughter), which the appellant claimed was illegal. 
• The appellant alleged he became aware of this transaction only in 2011, whereupon he filed a police complaint under the Land Grabbing Cell against the respondent's family. 
• Subsequently, the second respondent executed a settlement deed in favor of the third respondent in 2012, who then executed a General Power of Attorney deed in favor of the first respondent. 
• The appellant filed suit O.S. No. 310 of 2014 seeking declaration of ownership, permanent injunction, and nullification of the various deeds executed by the respondents. 
• During the proceedings, the respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds that it was undervalued and barred by limitation. 
• The Additional District Judge dismissed this application, but upon revision, the Madras High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and rejected the plaint solely on the grounds of limitation. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the question of limitation, especially in matters involving knowledge or notice of impugned transactions, is a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be conclusively determined without a full-fledged trial. 
• The Court held that where the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily but becomes a mixed question requiring evidence. 
• The Court noted that for Order VII Rule 11 purposes, the averments in the plaint must be taken at face value and assumed to be true, and the High Court erred in rejecting the plaint without permitting parties to lead evidence. 
• The Court found that the appellant's assertion regarding his discovery of the offence in 2011 and subsequent actions (complaint filing, patta application) could not be dismissed without proper evidentiary examination. 
• The Court observed that the High Court improperly reversed the trial court's well-reasoned order without undertaking examination as to whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge was demonstrably false or inherently improbable. 

What is Order VII Rule 11 of CPC? 

• Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a significant procedural provision that empowers courts to reject a plaint at the threshold stage without proceeding to trial. This rule serves as a filtering mechanism to prevent frivolous, vexatious, or legally untenable suits from consuming judicial time and resources. 
• The provision enumerates six specific grounds on which a court may reject a plaint: 
  • Where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action (Rule 11(a)). 
  • Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the court-specified timeframe (Rule 11(b)). 
  • Where the plaint is insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply the requisite stamp paper within the court-specified timeframe (Rule 11(c)). 
  • Where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint itself to be barred by any law, including limitation laws (Rule 11(d)). 
  • Where the plaint is not filed in duplicate (Rule 11(e)). 
  • Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 regarding copies of the plaint (Rule 11(f)). 
• The rule includes a proviso that restricts the court's ability to extend time for correcting valuation or supplying stamp paper unless the plaintiff was prevented by exceptional circumstances and a refusal would cause grave injustice. 

Case Laws Referenced in the Judgment 

• Daliben Valjibhai & Others v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Another (2024 ) - Established that when a plaintiff claims to have gained knowledge of essential facts at a particular point in time, it must be accepted at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, and limitation will run from the date of knowledge. 
• Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar (2018) - Held that in suits for cancellation of sale deeds, the limitation period commences from the date of knowledge, and where such date is pleaded in the plaint, it becomes a triable issue that cannot be determined summarily. 
• Salim D. Agboatwala & Others v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Others (2021)- Emphasized that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power and when a plaintiff claims knowledge of essential facts at a particular time, this must be accepted at the preliminary stage. 
• Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India & Another (2020) - Clarified that for Order VII Rule 11 purposes, only averments in the plaint are relevant and matters requiring mixed questions of fact and law cannot be decided summarily.