SRI BISWANATH BANIK & ANR. versus SMT. SULANGA BOSE & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 14-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 302
302
SRI BISWANATH BANIK & ANR.
v.
SMT. SULANGA BOSE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1848 of 2022)
MARCH 14, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.VII r.11 – Rejection of
plaint – Suit of declaration and permanent injunction – Defendants
seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by
limitation and that the suit for a declaration simplicitor under s.53A
of TPA would not be maintainable – Trial court refused to reject
plaint under Or.VII r.11 – However, on revision, High Court allowed
Or.VII r.11 application – On appeal, held: Rejection of a plaint
under Or.VII r.11(d) by reading only few lines and passages and
ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint is impermissible –
The Court has to consider and read the averments in the plaint as a
whole – On going through the entire plaint averments, it cannot be
said at this stage that the suit is barred by limitation on the face of
it – When the suit is for a decree of permanent injunction and it is
averred that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property
pursuant to the agreement and thereafter, they have developed the
land and that they are in continuous possession since more than
twelve years and they are also paying taxes to the Corporation, the
cause of action can be said to have arisen on the date on which the
possession is sought to be disturbed – If that be so, on facts, suit
for decree for permanent injunction cannot be said to be barred by
limitation – It is the settled proposition of law that the plaint cannot
be rejected partially – Even otherwise, the reliefs sought are
interconnected – Whether the plaintiffs shall be entitled to any relief
under s.53A of TPA or not has to be considered at the time of trial,
but at this stage it cannot be said that the suit for the relief sought
under s.53A would not be maintainable at all – Plaint is not liable
to be rejected in exercise of powers under Or.VII r.11 CPC – Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 – s.53A.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
303
Allowing the appeal the Court
HELD: 1. So far as the issue whether the suit can be said
to be barred by limitation or not, at this stage, what is required to
be considered is the averments in the plaint. Only in a case where
on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation,
then and then only a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule
11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation. At this stage, what is
required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. For the
said purpose, the Court has to consider and read the averments
in the plaint as a whole. While considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire
plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few
lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint.
[Paras 7, 7.1][307-F-G; 308-E]
2. When the suit is for a decree of permanent injunction
and it is averred that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit
property pursuant to the agreement and thereafter, they have
developed the land and that they are in continuous possession
since more than twelve years and they are also paying taxes to
the Corporation, the cause of action can be said to have arisen
on the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed. If
that be so, the suit for decree for permanent injunction cannot be
said to be barred by limitation. It is the settled proposition of law
that the plaint cannot be rejected partially. Even otherwise, the
reliefs sought are interconnected. Whether the plaintiffs shall be
entitled to any relief under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property
Act or not has to be considered at the time of trial, but at this
stage it cannot be said that the suit for the relief sought under
Section 53A would not be maintainable at all and therefore the
plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction
in rejecting the plaint while exercising the powers under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts.
[Paras 7.4, 8][309-E-H; 310-A-C]
Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Ors.,
(2007) 10 SCC 59 : [2007] 10 SCR 520; Delhi Motor
SRI BISWANATH BANIK & ANR. v. SMT. SULANGA BOSE &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Company v. U.A.

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