POPAT AND KOTECHA PROPERTY versus STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF ASSOCIATION

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 29-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
POPAT AND KOTECHA PROPERTY 
v. 
STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF ASSOCIATION 
AUGUST 29, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order VII Rule 1 l(d)-Rejection of plaint-Bar of limitation-
C 
Maintainability of-Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement in 
1983 whereby the plaintiff agreed to build and develop the property owned 
by the defendant-Agreement stipulated that after construction of the entire 
building defendant would execute a registered lease deed-Building was 
completed in the year 1984-But no lease deed was executed-Plaintiff filed 
D suit of declaration in 1990-Defendant filed application under n. VII R. 11 ( d) 
praying for rejection of plaint on the ground that suit was barred by 
limitation-High Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit-
Correctness of-Held : Diverse claims were made in the plaint and disputed 
questions in relation to the issue of limitation were involved-The statement 
in the plaint without addition or subtraction does not show that it was barred 
E 
by any law to attract the application of 0. VII 11 (d)-Hence, High Court not 
justified in dismissing the suit. 
F 
The appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement in the 
year 1983 whereby the appellant agreed to build and develop the property 
owned by the respondent-Association. The agreement stipulated that after 
construction of the entire building the respondent-Association would 
execute a registered lease deed in favour of the appellant. The building 
was completed in the year 1984. However, no lease deed was executed. 
The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title in the year 1990. The 
G 
respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 1 l(d) of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground 
that the suit was barred by limitation. Diverse claims were made in the 
suit and disputed questions in relation to the issue of limitation were also 
involved. However, the High Court allowed the application and dismissed 
H the suit. Hence the appeal. 
1030 
POPAT AND KOTECHA PROPERTY v. S.B.L STAFF ASSON. 
1031 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Order VII Rule ll (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
speaks suit as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by 
any law. Disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering 
an application filed under Order VII Rule ll CPC. Order VII Rule 11 
(d) applies in those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff 
in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute, shows that the suit is barred 
• 
by any law in force. 11037-D) 
2. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation 
A 
B 
and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such C 
a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of 
interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole 
to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or 
a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the 
substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into the pleading 
has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of the 
words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the 
party concerned is to be gathered ;irimarily from the tenor and terms of 
his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind 
that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-
splitting technicalities. 11039-D, E, Fl 
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, 12003) I SCC 557, ITC Ltd. v; 
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, 119981 2 SCC 70, Arivandandam v. T. V. 
Satyapal, 11977) 4 SCC 467 and Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd v. Ganesh 
Property, [19881 7 SCC 184, relied on. 
3. The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out 
of courts irresponsible law suits. Therefore, Order X of the Code is a tool 
in the hands of the courts by resorting to which and by searching 
examination of the party in case the court is primafacie of the view that 
the suit is an abuse of this process of the court in the sense that it is a bogus 
and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of 
the Code can be exercised. [1039-G, HJ 
4. There is a distinction between 'material facts' and 'particulars'. 
D 
.E 
F 
G 
The words ·material facts' show that the facts necessary to formulate a H 
1032 
SUPREME COURT 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.