Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Suit Barred by Limitation Rejected at Threshold

Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Shobha Vasant Bhoir & Ors. v. Soni @ Vandana Gurumukhdas Jagiasi & Ors.

• Citation: 2026 INSC 664

• Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

• Date of Judgment: July 1, 2026

• Area of Law: Civil Procedure, Limitation, Specific Performance, Rejection of Plaint

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and rejected the plaint filed by the respondents for specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sell dated August 21, 1984. The suit was filed in 2022, nearly 38 years after the agreement. The Court held that the suit was clearly barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of three years for filing a suit for specific performance. The Court rejected the respondents' contention that the period of limitation should run from the date of the High Court's order in a previous writ petition, holding that such an observation cannot create a fresh cause of action or extend the limitation period. The Court reaffirmed the principles under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, which empowers courts to reject plaints at the threshold if the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

Relevant Facts

• The subject property (Plot No. 1480, Ulhasnagar) was originally owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants.

• The respondents claimed that the predecessor-in-interest executed an unregistered agreement to sell on August 21, 1984, in their favor.

• Possession of the property was handed over to the Managing Officer, Ulhasnagar, on January 13, 1988, for making a police station, and the property remains in their possession.

• In 2002, the predecessor-in-interest applied for a Sanad for construction, but the SDO informed him that the land was reserved for a police station.

• Various pr

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