The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on grounds of limitation when seeking possession based on title, as the limitation period is 12 years under Article 65. The determination of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial, not a threshold dismissal.
Facts Of The Case:
The plaintiffs, claiming to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through the sisters of the original landowner Ronak Singh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and injunction. Their claim stemmed from a 1975 decree that set aside a prior gift made by Kartar Kaur and declared her the owner. Following Kartar Kaur’s death in 1983, the defendants set up a 1976 will in their favour, initiating prolonged mutation proceedings which ultimately concluded against the plaintiffs in 2017. The plaintiffs then filed the present suit in 2019, alleging the will was fraudulent and void. The defendants applied for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, contending the suit was barred by limitation as knowledge of the will existed since 1983, and also barred under Order II Rule 2 due to a previously filed and rejected suit. The trial court dismissed the application, but the High Court allowed a revision and rejected the plaint as time-barred. The Supreme Court, on appeal, reversed the High Court’s decision.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the filing of a civil suit by the appellant-plaintiffs in 2019. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on grounds of limitation and Order II Rule 2, which the trial court dismissed in January 2020. The defendants then preferred a civil revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court, in an ex-parte order dated January 2022, allowed the revision and rejected the plaint. The plaintiffs’ application for recall of this order was dismissed by the High Court in July 2022. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and, in the impugned judgment of October 2025, allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders, and restored the trial court’s order, directing the suit to proceed to trial.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Boosts Accident Compensation: Key Takeaways on Salary & Tax Calculation