Division Bench holds that limitation cannot be conclusively decided at the stage of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; plaint discloses triable issues requiring trial
In a significant decision dated September 10, 2026, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt, set aside the order of the Single Judge which had rejected the plaint filed by Kalimata Infratech Limited against Maheshwari Devi and others. The appellant had sought a declaration in respect of the invalidity of a deed of gift dated August 1, 1948, along with consequential reliefs including delivery of documents and perpetual injunction regarding immovable property situated at Loudon Street, Kolkata.
The suit, initially filed on March 18, 2016, was dismissed at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on grounds including limitation and abuse of process. The appellant challenged this dismissal by filing the present appeal.
The Division Bench meticulously examined the interplay of procedural rules under the Calcutta High Court's Original Side Rules, particularly Chapter XXXIXA relating to the centralized filing system. It held that limitation for the suit stops running from the date the plaint is filed in the Centralized Filing Section, which in this case was March 18, 2016, despite subsequent procedural steps such as obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in 2023. The Court emphasized that the non-obstante clauses in Chapter XXXIXA Rules 1 and 3 of the Original Side Rules have overriding effect, thus the plaint's filing date is determinative for limitation.
The Bench further clarified the law regarding rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Reliance was placed on multiple Supreme Court precedents including Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai (2018), Daliben Valjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai (2024), and B.S. Lalitha v. Bhuvanesh (2026), which affirm that the averments in the plaint must be taken as true at this stage and the defence of defendants is irrelevant. The Court underscored that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and if the plaint discloses triable issues regarding limitation, it cannot be rejected outright without trial.
The dispute centered on whether the appellant had constructive or actual notice of the deed of gift and rival claims prior to October 29, 2013, when the appellant purportedly first became aware of the deed through service of a plaint in another suit. The defendants contended that the appellant had earlier knowledge based on prior possession and title deeds, invoking Section 3 (including Explanations I and II) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. However, the Court held that such factual disputes about notice and possession require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of rejecting the plaint.
The Court observed that the appellant's pleadings raised genuine triable issues relating to the date of knowledge of the deed of gift, the authenticity of the deed, and possession facts. It noted that the defendants' contentions regarding knowledge of rival claims, including imputing knowledge from a director of the appellant company, needed to be tested through evidence at trial and could not be accepted at the pleading stage.
Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the suit for hearing on merits, keeping the issue of limitation open for trial. The Court affirmed that Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC cannot be invoked to reject a plaint where triable issues exist.
This ruling clarifies the procedural law relating to limitation and rejection of plaints in suits involving complex title disputes and competing claims to immovable property, reinforcing that courts must allow evidence and trial before deciding limitation conclusively.
Bottom Line:
Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Issue of limitation cannot be conclusively decided at the stage of considering a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the plaint discloses a triable issue regarding limitation, and the pleadings are to be taken as true and correct for this purpose.
Statutory provision(s):
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11, Order IV Rule 1;
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 59;
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 3 (Explanations I and II);
Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules - Chapter XXXIXA Rules 1 and 3, Chapter VII Rule 4;
Letters Patent, 1865 - Clause 12.
Kalimata Infratech Limited v. Maheshwari Devi, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975740
