RAM PRAKASH GUPTA versus RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 03-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM PRAKASH GUPTA 
)... . 
A 
v. 
RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 3, 2007 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0. 7 r. 11 ( d)-Rejection of 
Plaint-On the ground of limitation-After 15 years of institution of 
c the suit-Propriety of-Held: While deciding the application under the 
provision, pleadings in the plaint has to be read as a whole-In the 
facts of the case, rejection was without adverting to all the materials 
in the plaint and at belated stage-Hence rejection not proper-
Direction for restoration of suit-Limitation Act, 1963-Schedule, 
D Article 59. 
Appellant-Plaintiff filed a suit in 1990 making averments therein 
that he was a handicapped person. His father bought a piece ofland in 
his name. He constructed four storeys of building in question, from his 
E own funds. He had leased the first floor thereof to a tenant and had 
permitted the respondents' father (his brother) to use the second floor 
therecf as a licencee. Respondents after death of their father, in 1986 
claimed possession of the first floor of the building on the basis that they 
,,... 
had obtained some decree in that respect in 1976. Despite best efforts, 
F appellant could not get details of the case. The tenant in the first floor 
stopped paying rent to the appellant, and filed an interpleader suit in 
1989 allegingthatthtrewas dispute aboutthe persons to whom the rent 
was to be paid. In that suit details of the decree were disclosed. 
Thereafter appellant filed the suit. After 15 years ofinstitution of the 
)--
G suit, and also after filing of Written Statement, framing of issues 
(including on limitation), closure of evidence, respondents moved 
application under Order 7 Rule ll(d) CPC for rejection of plaint on the 
ground of suit being barred by limitation. Trial Court dismissed the suit 
on the ground off imitation. The order was confirmed by High Court. 
H 
520 
,. 
RAM PRAKASH GUPTA v. RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA 
521 
• ...J. 
Hence the present appeal . 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Clause ( d) of Order 7 Rule 2 CPC makes it clear that if 
the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, 
the same is liable to be rejected. For the said purpose, it is the duty of B 
the person who files such an application to satisfy the Court that the 
plaint does not disclose how the same is in time. In order to answer the 
said question, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to verify the entire 
plaint. Order 7 Rule 12 mandates where a plaint is rejected, the Court 
has to record the order to that effect with the reasons for such order. c 
[Para 17) [527-F, G) 
2. In his plaint the appellant/plaintiff has specifically stated that 
he is a handicapped person from the beginning and it is difficult for him 
to move about freely. The averments in the plaint clearly show that the 0 
decree passed in the year 1976 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff 
in the year 1986, when the tenant had filed the interpleadersuit, in which 
a copy of the earlier decree was placed on record and thereafter he took 
steps at the earliest and filed the suit for declaration and in alternative 
for possession. It is not in dispute that as per Article 59 of the Limitation 
E 
Act, 1963, a suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years 
from the date of the knowledge. The knowledge mentioned in the plaint 
cannot be termed as inadequate and incomplete as observed by the High 
_.... 
Court. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC few 
lines or passage should not be read in isolation and the pleadings have 
F 
to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. Both the trial Court 
as well as the High Court failed to advert to the relevant averinents as 
stated in the plaint. [Paras 17 and 18] [528-A, B; 529-G; 530-A, BJ 
Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2003] 1 
G 
SCC 557; l TC Ltd v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors., [1998] 
2 SCC 70; Roop Lal Sathiv. Nachhattar Singh Gill, [1982] 3 SCC 487; 
Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd v. Ganesh Property, [1998] 7 SCC 184 and 
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and 
Ors., [2004] 3SCC137, relied on. 
H 
\ 
~\ 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
3. It is also relevant to mention that after filing of the written 
. )- , 
statement, framing of the issues including on limitation, evidence was 
led, plaintiff was cross-examined, thereafter before conclusion 

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