Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The highest court of appeal on Thursday observed that the provision of Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure concerning the rejection of plaint, If the plaint does not disclose the genuine cause of action or suit barred by any law is mandatory in nature.
In the matter between 'Dahiben versus Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali,' the plaintiff in a clever manner tried to submit a false/illusionary cause of action to bring the suit within the period of limitation by intentionally not mentioning the date of the registered sale deed.
It was more than five and a half years from the alleged cause of action arose in 2009 according to the Limitation Act,1963. Which specifies the limitation of 3 years for the related matter. Therefore it was clearly Board as per Art 59 of the Limitation Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indu Malhotra after strong observance said: ".. this provision provides an independently special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without recording evidence and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any the grounds contained in this provision" .
The Court made the observation as follows:
Therefore Division bench on listing few guidelines for the lower courts to rely on stated order VII rule 11 of code of civil procedure is a mandate to validate the case on the basis of the cause of action and barring by law.
86540
103860
630
114
59824