Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. vs Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr.

11 and dismissed suit as barred by limitation – First Appellate Court reversed the decision holding that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and plaintiffs had alleged they became aware of the fraud only in 2017 – Only relevant material for disposing application under Order 7 Rule 11 are facts mentioned in the plaint, not defendants’ contentions – The High Court vide impugned order reinstated Trial Court’s decision holding that the suit was barred by limitation and the plaint did not include essential particulars of alleged fraud – Appeal against impugned order allowed – Held, High Court drew inferences possible only after trial even while recording the principle that operation and impact of Order 7 Rule 11, being a drastic remedy, Courts must adhere to the discipline of confining their scrutiny to the plaint averments – High Court carried away by the fact that the suit was filed 13 years after the execution of sale deed – No justification for allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments.

Reliance placed on P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy – Only if the averments in plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected – At the stage of consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant. [Paras 2-9, 11]

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 59 – Registration Act, 1908 – High Court in impugned order held that once a document is registered under the Registration Act, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge – Held, High Court not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself – Limitation will arise from date of knowledge:

Held: High Court correctly concluded that under Article 59, Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge – However, it found knowledge must be presumed from date of registration under Registration Act – High Court not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from date of registration itself – Reliance placed on Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar – Held that limitation in such cases will arise from date of knowledge. [Paras 10, 12-13] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – s.100 – Reversal of the judgment of the first Appellate Court on facts impermissible: Held: High Court was examining the issue while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC and as such reversal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court on facts was impermissible. [Para 14]