Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2022
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding a property dispute where the main issue was whether the suit was filed within the time limit set by law. The case, *Saranpal Kaur Anand vs. Praduman Singh Chandhok*, involved a challenge to property sale deeds made decades ago. The core question was whether the plaintiff’s claim was barred by limitation, and whether the High Court was right to reject the plaint based on this. The bench comprised Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, with Justice Khanna authoring the majority opinion and Justice Trivedi expressing a dissenting view.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property located at 4-C/7, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. The plaintiff, Saranpal Kaur Anand, claimed that this property was a joint family property and that a sale deed from 1969 transferring the property to Tej Kaur was invalid. She also challenged a subsequent sale deed from 1995. The defendants, Praduman Singh Chandhok and Pervinder Singh Chandhok, contested these claims, stating that the suit was filed too late.

Timeline

Date Event
20 January 1958 Harnam Singh Anand purchases the suit property in the name of his wife, Harbans Kaur.
17 February 1958 Sale deed registered with the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Delhi.
23 August 1969 Harbans Kaur, through her attorney, allegedly executes a sale deed transferring the suit property to Tej Kaur.
23 September 1974 Harnam Singh Anand passes away.
04 April 1982 Tej Kaur executes a General Power of Attorney in favor of Defendant No. 1.
12 October 1995 Tej Kaur executes a sale deed in favor of Defendant No. 2.
6 August 2005 Harbans Kaur passes away.
24 July 2007 Tej Kaur passes away.
3 May 2007 Tej Kaur allegedly executes a will bequeathing the suit property to Defendant No. 2.
10 October 2008 Plaintiff and family members send a legal notice to Defendants 1 and 2.
24 October 2008 Plaintiff sends another legal notice to Defendants 1 and 2.
16 December 2010 Plaintiff claims to have vaguely learned about the 1969 sale deed from a written statement in another case.
27 March 2012 Plaintiff files the civil suit.
7 February 2014 Single Judge of the High Court frames the preliminary issue of limitation.
6 April 2015 Single Judge rejects the plaint, stating it is time-barred.
25 April 2016 Division Bench of the High Court upholds the rejection of the plaint.
28 March 2022 Supreme Court delivers a split verdict.

Course of Proceedings

The case began in the High Court of Delhi, where the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declarations and injunctions related to the property. The defendants filed applications to reject the plaint, arguing it was filed after the limitation period. The Single Judge of the High Court framed a preliminary issue on limitation and ultimately rejected the plaint, stating it was time-barred. The plaintiff’s applications to amend the plaint were also dismissed. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically:

  • Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Mandates the dismissal of suits filed after the prescribed limitation period, even if limitation is not raised as a defense.
  • Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Prescribes a three-year limitation period for suits seeking declarations where no other specific article applies.
  • Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Addresses the effect of fraud or mistake on the limitation period. It states that if a suit is based on fraud, or knowledge of the right is concealed by fraud, the limitation period begins when the fraud or mistake is discovered. The relevant extract is:

    “17. Effect of fraud or mistake. —(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of Limitation is prescribed by this Act, — (a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of Limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production…..”

The judgment also refers to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically:

  • Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Allows for the rejection of a plaint if the suit appears to be barred by any law.
  • Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Permits the court to try an issue of law first if it relates to jurisdiction or a bar to the suit created by any law.
  • Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Requires that particulars of fraud be stated in the pleadings.
  • Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Requires the plaintiff to show the grounds for exemption from the law of limitation.
  • Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Allows the court to pronounce judgment on admissions made by a party.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

Appellant (Plaintiff) Arguments:

  • The plaintiff argued that the suit was not time-barred because the limitation period should start from when she discovered the fraud, as per Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

    • The plaintiff contended that the 1969 sale deed was fraudulent and that she had no knowledge of it until recently.
    • She argued that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, which could not be decided as a preliminary issue.

  • The plaintiff asserted that the High Court should have only considered the plaint’s averments and not the written statements or other documents when deciding on the rejection of the plaint.

  • The plaintiff claimed that the High Court erred in relying on Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it was not an issue before the Single Judge, and there were no clear admissions made by the plaintiff.

  • The plaintiff contended that the Single Judge should have first decided on the amendment applications before deciding the preliminary issue of limitation.

Respondent (Defendant) Arguments:

  • The defendants argued that the suit was clearly time-barred because the limitation period started in 1969 when the sale deed was executed.

    • They argued that the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale deed much earlier, as evidenced by legal notices sent by her in 2008.
    • They contended that the plaintiff’s amendment applications were an attempt to cover up the issue of limitation.

  • The defendants asserted that the High Court was correct in rejecting the plaint based on the admitted facts and documents.

  • The defendants argued that the Division Bench could use its powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because the plaintiff had made admissions.

See also  Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Narad Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh (10 May 2019)

The following table shows the sub-submissions categorized by the main submissions of all sides pertaining to the issue of limitation:

Main Submission Sub-Submissions (Appellant) Sub-Submissions (Respondent)
Whether the suit was barred by limitation
  • Limitation starts from the discovery of fraud.
  • The 1969 sale deed was fraudulent.
  • Plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale deed until recently.
  • Limitation starts from the date of execution of the sale deed (1969).
  • Plaintiff had knowledge of the sale deed much earlier (2008).
  • The suit was filed after the prescribed limitation period.
Whether the High Court could reject the plaint
  • The High Court should have only considered the plaint.
  • The High Court should not have relied on written statements or other documents.
  • The issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, not suitable for preliminary issue.
  • The High Court was correct in rejecting the plaint based on admitted facts.
  • The High Court could use Order XII Rule 6 due to admissions by the plaintiff.
Whether the amendment applications should have been considered
  • The Single Judge should have decided the amendment applications first.
  • The amendment applications were an afterthought to cover up the issue of limitation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

  1. Whether the Single Bench (trial court) could frame a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 regarding limitation, which was a mixed question of law and fact, to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  2. Whether the Division Bench (appellate court) could go beyond the scope of the appeal and use Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was not an issue before the Single Bench, to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  3. Whether the Single Bench and Division Bench committed errors by referring to written statements and other documents not part of the plaint while rejecting it under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the ground of limitation?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether the Single Bench could frame a preliminary issue on limitation Justice Khanna: Yes; Justice Trivedi: No Justice Khanna: The issue could be decided on admitted facts. Justice Trivedi: Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, not suitable for preliminary issue.
Whether the Division Bench could use Order XII Rule 6 Justice Khanna: Not Applicable; Justice Trivedi: No Justice Khanna: Not discussed; Justice Trivedi: The Division Bench could not use Order XII Rule 6 as it was not an issue before the Single Bench.
Whether the High Court erred in referring to documents not part of the plaint Justice Khanna: No; Justice Trivedi: Yes Justice Khanna: The Court could draw inferences from the facts stated in the plaint. Justice Trivedi: The High Court could only look at the plaint and not other documents.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Case Name Court Legal Point How it was used by the court
Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 638] Supreme Court of India Decision on issues of law should not be decided as a preliminary issue if it depends on issues of fact. Justice Khanna cited this case to support the proposition that issues of law can be decided as a preliminary issue only when they can be adjudicated on admitted facts. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that a suit cannot be tried on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue.
Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties and Others [(2020) 6 SCC 557] Supreme Court of India Court can decide a question of law as a preliminary issue if it is dependent upon the outcome of admitted facts. Justice Khanna cited this case to support the proposition that a question of law can be decided as a preliminary issue if it is dependent upon admitted facts. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that a mixed question of law and fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Others [(2001) 7 SCC 549] Supreme Court of India Principles of justice and equity that a party should not be penalized for failing to adopt legal proceedings when facts or documents have been wilfully concealed. Justice Khanna cited this case to support the principle that a party should not be penalized for failing to adopt legal proceedings when the facts or documents have been wilfully concealed.
P. Radha Bai and Others v. P. Ashok Kumar and Another [(2019) 13 SCC 445] Supreme Court of India Section 17(1)(b) and (d) encompass only those fraudulent documents or acts of concealment of documents which have the effect of suppressing knowledge entitling the party to pursue his legal remedy. Justice Khanna cited this case to support the proposition that Section 17 of the Limitation Act does not encompass all kinds of frauds.
Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand [(2008) 5 SCC 117] Supreme Court of India Definition of ‘diligence’. Justice Khanna cited this case to define the term ‘diligence’ in the context of Section 17(1) of the Limitation Act.
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 2 SCC 467] Supreme Court of India Courts should check vexatious and meritless cases at the threshold. Justice Khanna cited this case to support the idea that courts should check and weed out manifestly vexatious and meritless cases at the threshold. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that if clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, the court should nip it in the bud.
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jala [(2017) 13 SCC 174] Supreme Court of India Courts should check and weed out manifestly vexatious and meritless cases at the threshold. Justice Khanna cited this case to support the idea that courts should check and weed out manifestly vexatious and meritless cases at the threshold.
Kamala & Ors Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors [(2008) 12 SCC 661] Supreme Court of India For invoking Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC, no amount of evidence can be looked into and the conclusion that the suit is barred under any law must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that for invoking Order VII Rule 11(d), no amount of evidence can be looked into and the conclusion that the suit is barred under any law must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint.
Salim Bhai and Ors . Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors [(2003) 1 SCC 557] Supreme Court of India For deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII, CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that for deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII, CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane.
Soumitra Kumar Sen Vs. Shyamal Kumar Sen and Ors [(2018) 5 SCC 644] Supreme Court of India One has to only look into the plaint for the purpose of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that one has to only look into the plaint for the purpose of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central bank of India and Another [2020 SCC Online SC 482] Supreme Court of India In order to consider Order VII Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that in order to consider Order VII Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint.
Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat [(2021) 9 SCC 99] Supreme Court of India Whether the suit is barred by any law or not must be determined from the statements made in the plaint. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that whether the suit is barred by any law or not must be determined from the statements made in the plaint.
Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Philliar Temple Vs. M. Sakuntala [(2015) 5 SCC 574] Supreme Court of India The issue of limitation is not a pure question of law to be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the issue of limitation is not a pure question of law to be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC.
Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd . Vs. United Bank of India & Ors [2000 (4) RCR Civil 89] Supreme Court of India The object of Order XII Rule 6 is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the object of Order XII Rule 6 is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment.
Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs. Tata Steel Ltd [2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 721] Supreme Court of India The admission made by the party should be clear, unambiguous and unconditional. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the admission made by the party should be clear, unambiguous and unconditional.
Karam Kapahi & Ors Vs. M/S Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr [(2010) 4 SCC 753] Supreme Court of India The principle behind Order XII, Rule 6 is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the principle behind Order XII, Rule 6 is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment.
Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors . Vs. Smt.Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr [(2005) 11 SCC 279] Supreme Court of India The principle behind Order XII, Rule 6 is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the principle behind Order XII, Rule 6 is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment.
Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors [AIR 1964 SC 993] Supreme Court of India The inherent power of the Court cannot override the express provisions of the law. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the inherent power of the Court cannot override the express provisions of the law.
Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2011) 9 SCC 126] Supreme Court of India If the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrued. Justice Patwalia cited this case to support the proposition that if the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrued.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case: Roopwanti vs. State of Haryana (24 February 2023)

Statutes:

Provision Statute Brief on the provision
Section 3 Limitation Act, 1963 Mandates the dismissal of suits filed after the prescribed limitation period.
Article 58 Limitation Act, 1963 Prescribes a three-year limitation period for suits seeking declarations where no other specific article applies.
Section 17 Limitation Act, 1963 Addresses the effect of fraud or mistake on the limitation period.
Order VII Rule 11(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Allows for the rejection of a plaint if the suit appears to be barred by any law.
Order XIV Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Permits the court to try an issue of law first if it relates to jurisdiction or a bar to the suit created by any law.
Order VI Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Requires that particulars of fraud be stated in the pleadings.
Order VII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Requires the plaintiff to show the grounds for exemption from the law of limitation.
Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Allows the court to pronounce judgment on admissions made by a party.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, writing for the majority, dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to reject the plaint. Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, stating that the High Court had erred in rejecting the plaint.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission How the Court treated it (Justice Khanna) How the Court treated it (Justice Trivedi)
Suit was not time-barred because of fraud Rejected. The plaintiff had knowledge of the sale deed in 2008, and the suit was filed after the limitation period. Accepted. The plaintiff had pleaded fraud, and the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, which could not be decided as a preliminary issue.
High Court should have only considered the plaint Partially Accepted. The Court can draw inferences from the facts stated in the plaint. Accepted. The High Court should have only considered the plaint’s averments and not the written statements or other documents.
High Court erred in relying on Order XII Rule 6 Not Applicable. The Court did not address this issue. Accepted. The Division Bench had travelled beyond the scope of appeal by relying upon the provision contained in Order XII Rule 6 for rejecting the plaint.
Single Judge should have first decided on the amendment applications Rejected. Amendment applications were unnecessary as the suit was time-barred. Not Applicable. The Court did not address this issue.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 638]*: Justice Khanna cited this case to support the proposition that issues of law can be decided as a preliminary issue only when they can be adjudicated on admitted facts. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that a suit cannot be tried on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue.
  • Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties and Others [(2020) 6 SCC 557]*: Justice Khanna cited this case to support the proposition that a question of law can be decided as a preliminary issue if it is dependent upon admitted facts. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that a mixed question of law and fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
  • Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Others [(2001) 7 SCC 549]*: Justice Khanna cited this case to support the principle that a party should not be penalized for failing to adopt legal proceedings when the facts or documents have been wilfully concealed.
  • P. Radha Bai and Others v. P. Ashok Kumar and Another [(2019) 13 SCC 445]*: Justice Khanna cited this case to support the proposition that Section 17 of the Limitation Act does not encompass all kinds of frauds.
  • Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand [(2008) 5 SCC 117]*: Justice Khanna cited this case to define the term ‘diligence’ in the context of Section 17(1) of the Limitation Act.
  • T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 2 SCC 467]*: Justice Khanna cited this case to support the idea that courts should check and weed out manifestly vexatious and meritless cases at the threshold. Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that if clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, the court should nip it in the bud.
  • Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jala [(2017) 13 SCC 174]*: Justice Khanna cited this case to support the idea that courts should check and weed out manifestly vexatious and meritless cases at the threshold.
  • Kamala & Ors Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors [(2008) 12 SCC 661]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that for invoking Order VII Rule 11(d), no amount of evidence can be looked into and the conclusion that the suit is barred under any law must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint.
  • Salim Bhai and Ors . Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors [(2003) 1 SCC 557]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that for deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII, CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane.
  • Soumitra Kumar Sen Vs. Shyamal Kumar Sen and Ors [(2018) 5 SCC 644]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that one has to only look into the plaint for the purpose of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
  • Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central bank of India and Another [2020 SCC Online SC 482]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that in order to consider Order VII Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint.
  • Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat [(2021) 9 SCC 99]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that whether the suit is barred by any law or not must be determined from the statements made in the plaint.
  • Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Philliar Temple Vs. M. Sakuntala [(2015) 5 SCC 574]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the issue of limitation is not a pure question of law to be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC.
  • Uttam Singh Dugal &Co. Ltd . Vs. United Bank of India & Ors [2000 (4) RCR Civil 89]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the object of Order XII Rule 6 is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment.
  • Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs. Tata Steel Ltd [2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 721]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the admission made by the party should be clear, unambiguous and unconditional.
  • Karam Kapahi & Ors Vs. M/S Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr [(2010) 4 SCC 753]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the principle behind Order XII, Rule 6 is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment.
  • Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors . Vs. Smt.Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr [(2005) 11 SCC 279]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the principle behind Order XII, Rule 6 is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment.
  • Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors [AIR 1964 SC 993]*: Justice Trivedi cited this case to support the proposition that the inherent power of the Court cannot override the express provisions of the law.
  • Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2011) 9 SCC 126]*: Justice Patwalia cited this case to support the proposition that if the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrued.
See also  Supreme Court Clarifies Meaning of "Execution" in Registration Act: Veena Singh vs. District Registrar (2022)

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi (the legal principle upon which the decision is based) of the majority opinion is:

  • An issue of law, including limitation, can be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if it can be decided on admitted facts or on the averments made in the plaint itself, without requiring any further evidence.

  • For the purpose of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court can consider the plaint and draw inferences from the facts stated therein, and is not limited to the express averments.

  • Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not encompass all kinds of frauds, and the limitation period begins when the plaintiff discovers the fraud or could have discovered it with reasonable diligence. In this case, the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale deed in 2008, and filing the suit in 2012 was time-barred.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, holding that:

  • The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  • The High Court could only look at the plaint and not other documents or written statements for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  • The Division Bench had travelled beyond the scope of appeal by relying upon the provision contained in Order XII Rule 6 for rejecting the plaint.

  • The plaint disclosed a cause of action, and the suit should not have been rejected at the threshold.

Flowchart of the Case

Suit filed in High Court
↓
Single Judge frames preliminary issue of limitation
↓
Single Judge rejects plaint as time-barred
↓
Division Bench upholds rejection of plaint
↓
Appeal to Supreme Court
↓
Supreme Court delivers split verdict (Majority: Dismissed; Dissent: Allowed)

Source: Supreme Court Divided on Plaint Rejection in Saranpal Kaur Anand vs. Praduman Singh Chandhok