Court reiterates that for rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments are considered; suit based on registered agreement to sell not barred by limitation as cause of action arose on notice of refusal.
In a significant judgment dated October 7, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dismissed a revision petition filed by Shashwat Kesarwani and another challenging the trial court's order rejecting their application for dismissal of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The plaint was filed by Anil Kumar Singh seeking specific performance and permanent injunction against the original defendants for the sale of a property based on a registered agreement to sell.
The dispute arose over a plot allotted by the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow, for which the original defendants executed a registered agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff on May 8, 2015, at an agreed price of Rs. 43 lakhs. The plaintiff had paid a substantial amount upfront and pleaded readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. However, the sale deed in favor of original defendants was executed only on November 5, 2016, after the plaintiff had already filed the suit on October 5, 2016, based on information received on October 3, 2016, that the original defendants intended to alienate the property to a third party, violating the agreement.
The revisionists argued that the suit was premature and barred by limitation since the agreement did not fix a definite date for performance, and the plaintiff filed the suit before the sale deed in favor of original defendants was executed. They further contended that the agreement was a sham and that the suit was barred under Sections 17 and 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Rejecting these contentions, Justice Avnish Saxena emphasized the settled legal principles governing rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which restricts the court to consider only the averments in the plaint. The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action as it specifically pleaded the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, issuance of notices, and credible information regarding refusal/perceived threat of transfer to third parties. The absence of a fixed calendar date in the agreement meant that the limitation period, as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, began to run when the plaintiff received notice of refusal, not on the date of the agreement or execution of the sale deed by the original defendants.
The court referred extensively to precedents from the Supreme Court, including Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Ahmadsahab Abdul Mulla v. Bibijan, to affirm that cause of action is a bundle of material facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove entitlement to relief, and that a suit based on a premature claim is not liable to be dismissed outright if the plaint discloses a cause of action. The judgment distinguished issues such as bona fide purchase and sham agreements as matters for trial, not for consideration at the stage of rejection of plaint.
The court also reiterated that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be conclusively decided at the threshold unless the plaint on its face shows the suit is barred. It underscored that the trial court rightly rejected the application to dismiss the plaint, and this order was affirmed.
This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural powers to dismiss plaints under Order VII Rule 11 are to be exercised cautiously and only when the plaint is absolutely devoid of cause of action or barred by law on the face of it. It also clarifies the application of Article 54 of the Limitation Act in contracts where no fixed date of performance is stipulated.
Bottom Line:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based on registered agreement to sell - Plea that suit was premature and barred by limitation rejected - For deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, only plaint averments are to be seen - Where agreement did not fix a definite date for performance and plaint specifically pleaded notice of refusal/apprehended transfer to third party, plaint disclosed cause of action and suit could not be rejected as barred by law - Questions under Sections 17 and 19 of Specific Relief Act are matters for trial.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11; Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 17 and 19
Shashwat Kesarwani v. Anil Kumar Singh, (All)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992535
