The Supreme Court has held that a plaint can be rejected at the threshold stage if the pleadings make it evident that the plaint is barred by limitation.

“…the Court cannot be hesitant in granting relief of rejection of a plaint when it is so obvious from the pleadings itself.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran.

The Court said that while limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law which requires adjudication in trial, however, where the facts about the plaint being barred by limitation are glaring from the plaint averments themselves, the court must exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint at the threshold stage without waiting for a trial.

The case arose from a Joint Venture Agreement entered into on August 18, 2014, between the appellant (landowner) and the respondent (developer). The respondent was to construct eight flats on two plots owned by the appellant. Upon completion, 56% of the super built-up area was to go to the landowners, and the remaining 44% was to be conceded to the developer.

The appellant cancelled the Joint Venture Agreement on April 20, 2016, alleging that construction was not completed within the stipulated 15 months. This was followed by a lawyer's notice on July 22, 2016. The respondent replied on July 23, 2016, resisting the cancellation.

The parties exchanged further communications, and in June 2017, the appellant took possession of the properties.

The respondent filed the suit for specific relief for division and allotment of 44% share in October 2022, more than six years after the first communication cancelling the agreement.

The Appellant-defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on grounds of limitation.

The trial court and High Court rejected the defendant's application, following which an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned orders, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran, referring to the plaint averments, observed that since the plaint was ex facie barred by limitation, the courts below erred in rejecting the Appellant's Order VII Rule 11 CPC application.

The Court reiterated the law laid down in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041, to hold that “when an application to reject the plaint is filed, the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith alone are germane”, without requiring the court to delve into other materials on record.

Applying the law, the Court examined Paragraph 17 of the plaint, where the plaintiff itself had asserted the cause of action. The extract showed that the cause of action arose on April 20, 2016 i.e., the first communication cancelling the Joint Venture Agreement. Since the plaint was filed beyond the three-year limitation prescribed for seeking a share in property based on a contract, the Court rejected the plaint

"The cause of action, as seen from the above, according to us, arose on the first communication cancelling the Joint Venture Agreement dated 20.04.2016…The suit was filed in October 2022, grossly delayed from year 2016 itself; even 22.11.2016, the last but one of the dates in the above extract.", the Court observed.

“We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the Trial Court and the High Court and we set aside the same…The plaint filed in O.S. No.632 of 2022 between the parties pending in Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, shall stand rejected.”, the court held.

As a result, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: N Asha Devi Versus R Aravind Kumar & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 849

Click here to download order