Synopsis

The appellant (original plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of a registered agreement to sale dated 13th October 1997 for purchase of 1/3 share of certain agricultural lands. The suit was filed on 6th October 2009 – nearly 12 years after the agreement and 8 years after the suit property was sold by the original owner’s legal heirs to third parties in 2001. The defendant nos.2 to 6 (subsequent purchasers) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff appealed.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) the plaint on its face showed that the suit was hopelessly time‑barred; (ii) the plaintiff’s averment that he came to know about the sale deeds only two to three months before filing the suit was a “clever drafting” to create an illusion of a cause of action; (iii) the plaintiff had made interpolations in the plaint (handwritten additions) regarding the date of knowledge; (iv) the plaintiff had not given any details of events between 1997 and 2001; (v) the question of limitation, in this case, was not a mixed question of fact and law because the plaint itself disclosed the bar; and (vi) the trial court correctly exercised its power under Order VII Rule 11(d) to nip a vexatious, bogus litigation in the bud. The appeal was dismissed.

Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Honourable Mr. Justice L. S. Pirzada

Date of Judgment: 24th March 2026

Citation: First Appeal No. 3928 of 2010 (unreported)

Core Law: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 (appeal from original decree), Order VII Rule 11(d) (rejection of plaint where suit barred by law), Order VII Rule 11(a) (rejection where no cause of action); Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 (specific performance)

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 (appeals from original decrees); Order VII Rule 11(d) (rejection of plaint where suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law); Order VII Rule 11(a) (rejection where plaint discloses no cause of action)

• Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 (period of limitation for suit for specific performance: three years from the date fixed for performance, or if no date fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused)

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 3 (constructive notice)

Key legal principles applied

Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) for being barred by limitation: Under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court can reject a plaint if the suit appears from the statement in the plaint itself to be barred by any law, including the law of limitation. For this purpose, the court must look only at the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto. It cannot look at the defence or external evidence. However, if the plaint on its face shows that the suit is beyond the limitation period and the plaintiff’s averments about the date of knowledge are patently false or cleverly drafted to circumvent limitation, the court can reject the plaint.

Limitation for specific performance (Article 54 of Limitation Act): A suit for specific performance of a contract must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance. If no date is fixed, the period runs from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. In the present case, the agreement dated 13th October 1997 required the plaintiff to obtain government permission within three years (i.e., by 13th October 2000). The suit was filed on 6th October 2009 – nine years after the expiry of the stipulated period.

Doctrine of constructive notice (Section 3 of TP Act): A pers

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.