The Supreme Court has held that a plaint can be rejected at the threshold stage if the pleadings make it evident that the plaint is barred by limitation.
“…the Court cannot be hesitant in granting relief of rejection of a plaint when it is so obvious from the pleadings itself.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
The Court said that while limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law which requires adjudication in trial, however, where the facts about the plaint being barred by limitation are glaring from the plaint averments themselves, the court must exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint at the threshold stage without waiting for a trial.
The Court reiterated the law laid down in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another
to hold that “when an application to reject the plaint is filed, the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith alone are germane”, without requiring the court to delve into other materials on record.
2026 INSC 908
Page 1 of 7
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.11194 of 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23279 of 2025)
N Asha Devi …Appellant (s)
Versus
R Aravind Kumar & Anr. …Respondent (s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, defendant in the suit for division and
allotment of 44% share in both the land and the built-up area
of the suit schedule property, is aggrieved with the rejection
of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11. The Trial
Court rejected and the High Court confirmed it. The rejection
of suit was sought for on the question of limitation and the
plaintiff’s contention was that limitation is a mixed question of
facts and law and it needs to be tested in a trial after leading
evidence.
Page 2 of 7
3. We heard Sri A. K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant and Sri M. S. Ganesh, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents.
4. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that though
the agreements are admitted, it was in pursuance of a joint
venture to develop two plots owned by the appellant herein.
The Joint Venture Agreement was also related to construction
of apartments in the two plots, which construction was the
obligation of the respondent. That having not been
completed within time, 15 months as specified in the
agreement, the Joint Venture was cancelled by issuing a
written communication dated 20.04.2016, followed up with a
lawyer’s notice on 22.07.2016. The respondent replied on
23.07.2016, resisting the cancellation on the ground of it
being unilateral. The respondent also filed a caveat in the
City Civil Court, Chennai, on 26.07.2016 and on 05.08.2016,
another communication was addressed to the respondent to
remove the construction materials in the premises belonging
to the respondent. On 22.11.2016, notice was issued
demanding surrender of the key and restoration of access to
premises. In June 2017, the appellant took possession of the
Page 3 of 7
properties, since the respondents and removed the debris
collected in the property.
5. The suit was filed in October 2022, grossly delayed is
the contention. The respondent, however, resisted the same
with reference to the agreement. It is argued that the
agreement itself conferred 44% share in the land and the
Joint Venture Agreement is not determinable by a unilateral
cancellation. It was also argued that the ground of limitation
cannot result in the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule
11.
6. Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati
Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another1
,
reiterated the trite principle that ‘when an application to reject
the plaint is filed, the averments in the plaint and the documents
annexed therewith alone are germane’. This Court, keeping in
mind the position of law that limitation is a mixed question of
fact and law, found the facts arising therein, glaring from the
plaint averments itself and held the suit to be hopelessly
barred by limitation. It was held that the Court cannot be
1
(2024) 15 SCC 675
Page 4 of 7
hesitant in granting relief of rejection of a plaint when it is so
obvious from the pleadings itself.
7. With the above principle in mind, we looked at the
plaint. The various facts we noticed in paragraph 4, as would
be evident from the records in the SLP are not germane to the
consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 4, and
the plaint alone has to be perused. Suffice, on facts, from the
plaint, to notice that there were two vacant sites which were
the subject of two Joint Venture Agreements entered into on
18.08.2014. Together the land had an extent of 4800 sq. ft., on
which 8 flats were to be constructed by the defendant, the
plaintiff being the original owner of the property. On
completion of the construction, 56% of the total super builtup area of the suit schedule property was to go to the owners
and the remaining 44%, both of the undivided share in the
land and the super built-up area, had to be conceded to the
respondent. Obviously, the construction commenced and
while the appellant asserts that it was not completed within
the stipulated time, the respondents vehemently contend, at
least at the time of cancellation, the entire construction was
Page 5 of 7
completed, and they had possession over 44% of the built-up
area.
8. Despite the claim of possession, the specific relief
sought in the suit is division and allotment of 44% share in
both the land and the built-up area as per the Joint Venture
Agreements, which puts paid the contention regarding
possession.
9. Insofar as limitation, in the present case, we need only
look at Paragraph 17 of the plaint filed before the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in O.S. No.632 of
2022, which brings forth the cause of action, asserted by the
plaintiff itself; extracted hereinbelow: –
‘17. The plaintiffs submit that, the cause of the
action for the suit arose on 18.8.2014 when the
plaintiffs had entered into Two Memorandum of
Joint Venture agreements with the defendant with
respect of the construction of eight flats in the
vacant sites in Plot Nos. S4 & S7 at the cost of the
plaintiffs. In August 2016, when the plaintiffs had
completed the construction of eight flats as per
plan and became the owner of 44% share in the
land and in the built-up area of the plaint
schedule property, on 20.4.2016, when the
defendants by their letter sent to the plaintiffs
sought to cancel the two Memorandum of Joint
venture agreement dated 18.8.2014, on
22.07.2016, when the defendants had caused a
lawyers notice to the plaintiffs, on 23.07.2016,
when the plaintiffs had caused a reply, on
Page 6 of 7
05.08.2016, when the defendants by his lawyers
notice sent to the plaintiffs reiterated the same
allegations, on 02.09.2016 when the plaintiffs had
replied to the lawyers notice and on 20.09.2016
and 22.ll.2016 when the defendants had sent
lawyers notice to the plaintiff whereby they had
levelled the very same allegations. On
08.06.2022, the plaintiffs had given a public
notice that, the public shall not venture to
purchase the plaint schedule properties stating
that, they are the owner of 44% undivided share
in the land and in the super built up area of the
plaint schedule properties and at Thoralpakkam
village, Sholinganallur Taluk within the
Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court where the plaint
schedule property is situate’
10. The cause of action, as seen from the above, according
to us, arose on the first communication cancelling the Joint
Venture Agreement dated 20.04.2016. The further
communications between the appellant and the respondent
only highlights the dispute, arising from the cancellation, and
does not create a fresh cause of action in any event. The suit
was filed in October 2022, grossly delayed from year 2016
itself; even 22.11.2016, the last but one of the dates in the
above extract. The contention of the respondent/plaintiff
seems to be that on 08.06.2022, they issued a public notice
cautioning third parties from purchasing the plaint schedule
properties. This does not create a fresh cause of action, since
Page 7 of 7
the publication was in self-interest, which itself was grossly
delayed.
11. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of
the Trial Court and the High Court and we set aside the same.
12. The plaint filed in O.S. No.632 of 2022 between the
parties pending in Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chengalpattu, shall stand rejected.
13. The appeal is allowed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….…….……………………. J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
….……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 17, 2026.