A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law & fact.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Salim D. Agboatwala Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar in SLP(C) 26441/2014 decided on 17th September 2021 was called upon to adjudicate, whether a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 rule 11 CPC, being barred by limitation, if the issue is a mixed question of fact and law.
FACTS
The issue before the Court was whether the suit filed in the year 1987 challenging the action of the competent authorities in the years 1963 and 1964 was hopelessly barred by limitation;
Decision of Supreme Court
Apex Court while allowing the appeal, observed that insofar as the rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasise that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. Apex Court referred its earlier judgment in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P.Neeradha Reddy, wherein it was observed that the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation.
When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11. The plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and hence the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold.
Apex Court observed that if the plaintiffs succeed in establishing that they got the knowledge of the proceeding or order as claimed in the plaint, the issue of limitation cannot be put against the plaintiffs. Generally a party, who never had any notice of a particular proceeding before a quasi-judicial authority, is entitled to approach the Court upon gaining knowledge of the proceedings. Limitation cannot be put against such a party. Hence, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not right in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation