APHC010458742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the eighteenth day of November two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Between: T.Jayamma and R. Prasanalakshmi and Counsel for the petitioner: 1. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy Counsel for the respondent 1. Regulagadda Venkatesh The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the eighteenth day of November two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.2213 of 2025 Prasanalakshmi and others ...Respondents etitioner: Lakshminarayana Reddy espondents: Regulagadda Venkatesh The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the eighteenth day of November two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 20.06.2025, of the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, dismissing the application in I.A.No.1639 of 2024 in O.S.No.47 of 2021 filed by the defendant No.1 under Order VII, Rule 11(d) C.P.C. to reject the plaint with exemplary costs on the ground of bar of limitation. 2. The case of the defendant No.1 in support of the request made in the application for rejection of the plaint, in brief, is as follows:- The respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs, basing on the agreement of sale, dated 04.02.2011, executed by the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs approached the Court with unclean hands. They failed to come forward to perform their part of the contract to pay the remaining balance sale consideration payable on the agreement of sale, dated 04.02.2011. As per the terms of agreement of sale, the plaintiffs shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,25,00,000/- on or before 16.09.2011. The 1st defendant performed her part of the contract within the stipulated time, i.e., 16.09.2011. But, the plaintiffs did not come forward to perform their part of contract in spite of fixing survey stones by the Mandal Surveyor, as per the terms of the contract, prior to one day, i.e., 16.09.2011. Therefore, the defendant No.1 got issued a notice to the plaintiffs that they have got no right over the plaint schedule property as they violated the terms and conditions of agreement of sale, dated 04.02.2011. Taking advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic and absence of the defendant No.1 in India, the plaintiffs filed the suit with false allegations for enforcement of the agreement of sale knowing fully 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 well that the agreement is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs violated the terms of the agreement of sale. Thus, the plaint is to be rejected. 3. The respondents / plaintiffs filed counter denying the petition averments and stating that the present petition filed after more than five (5) years is not maintainable. The aspect of limitation is mixed question of fact and law and in the circumstances, the plaint in which pleadings have been concluded cannot be rejected. For deciding an application for rejection of plaint, only averments in the plaint are to be looked into. The suit was filed immediately after knowing that the defendants are not willing to proceed with the agreement. The present petition filed after almost six years is aimed at further delaying the proceedings. The suit is within limitation. The plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.75 lakhs which is not a small amount. There are no merits in the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided at the threshold and is to be decided only after full- fledged trial. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant No.1 preferred this revision petition. 6. To examine the question as to whether the plaint is liable to be rejected or not, it is necessary to examine the plaint averments independently, because, while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken in defence now by the defendants would be irrelevant. 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 7. For the purpose of better appreciation, relevant portion of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is excerpted herein below: “11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) …. …. …. …. (c) …. …. …. …. (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) …. …. …. …. (f) …. …. …. …… …………………. ………………………..” A perusal of the aforesaid provision would make it clear that a plaint is liable for rejection, if the suit is barred by any law or where it does not disclose a cause of action. 8. The only ground raised by the petitioner to reject the plaint is that the suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, the trial Court has not gone into any other ground and similarly, this Court does not want to go into any other ground since it is out of scope of the order under challenge. As such, the contentions raised on the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to be established is not a matter of consideration in this revision petition. 9. Coming to the aspect of question of limitation being a ground for rejection of the plaint, as rightly contended by the revision petitioner, in all cases where this question is raised to reject the plaint, the petition need not be dismissed at the threshold stating that the question of 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. This contention is rightly raised basing on the observation of the Supreme Court in Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by legal representatives1, wherein at paragraph No.9, it was held as follows: “9. Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original plaintiff and even the observations made by the learned trial Court as well as the High Court that the question with respect to the limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after the parties lead the evidence, is concenred, as observed and held by this Court in Sham Lal @ Kuldip Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others [(2009) 12 SCC 454], N.V. Srinivasa Murthy & others Vs. Mariyamma (dead) by L.Rs & others [(2005) 5 SCC 548] as well as in Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Others [(2007)10 SCC 59], considering the averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.” Therefore, in each case, the averments in the plaint and the documents attached thereto shall be examined to ascertain whether the suit is clearly barred by limitation to reject the plaint. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in C.S.Ramaswamy Vs. V.K.Senthil 1 (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 601 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 and others2 pointing out to the observations in paragraphs Nos.7I and 8. “7I. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the case on hand and the averments in the plaints, we are of the opinion that both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The respective suits have been filed after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deeds. It is to be noted that one suit was filed by the minor, which was filed in the year 2006, in which some of the plaintiffs herein were also party to the said suit and in the said suit, there was a specific reference to the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2005 and the said suit came to be dismissed in the year 2014 and immediately thereafter the present suits have been filed. Thus, from the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation, which otherwise are barred by limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal & Another [(1977) 4 SCC 467] and other decision of Raghwendra Sharan Singh’s case (supra) and as the respective suits are barred by the law of limitation, the 2 2022 (6) ALD 109 (SC) # 2022 SC OnLine SC 1330 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 respective plaints are required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court rejecting the revision applications and the orders passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the respective applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and refusing to reject the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are hereby quashed and set aside. The respective applications filed by the appelalnt herein- original defendant to reject therspective plaints on the ground that the same are barred by the law of limitation are hereby allowed. The respective plaints are hereby rejected on the ground that the same are barred by limitation.” The observations made in those paragraphs are based on appreciation of facts from the averments in the plaint. It was held that the averments in the plaint in that suit disclosed clever drafting by the plaintiffs to bring about the suits within the period of limitation which is otherwise barred by limitation, and therefore, considering the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal & Another3 it was held that the suit in that case was barred by law of limitation. As such, the decision has no support to the case on hand as each case is to be decided in the light of the facts averred in the plaint and the documents attached to it. 3 (1977) 4 SCC 467 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 11. Nextly, the learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson / Managing Trustee4 by pointing out the observations made in paragraph No.21. It reads as below: “21. It is clear that from the date the power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent and by virtue of the terms, the agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him are subject to the limitations contained in the said deed. It is further clear that the power of attorney holder executes a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under it and conveys title on behalf of the grantor.” There is no dispute about the legal proposition in the above noted observations of the Supreme Court. 12. Nextly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in Ramisetty Venkatanna & Another Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Others 5 wherein general principles of law regarding the scope and power of Court under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. were discussed. In support of the same view, another case of Supreme Court in Uma Devi and Others Vs. Anand Kumar and others6. It is relevant to note paragraphs Nos.14 to 16 which deal with principles of law regarding Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. 4 (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 706 5 2023 LawSuit(SC) 452 6 2025 LawSuit (SC) 449 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 with reference to the question of limitation as well and the drafting of the pleadings. They read as under: “14. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant- defendants, Mr Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle [(2024) 15 SCC 675 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844] to substantiate the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. It was observed as follows: “16. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by court auction and registered in the first instance and when another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, comes into operation. The possession, in the present case, also has been rested with the appellant before several decades, which operates as notice of title. … 17 *** 18. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts below have held that the question of the suit being barred by limitation can be decided at the time of trial as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Though the question of limitation generally is mixed question of law and facts, when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court can come to a conclusion that under the 10 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.” 15. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [(2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] , this Court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.: “The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the 11 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” 16. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali [(2020) 7 SCC 366: (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 128] , it is stated as under : “The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.” This decision also deals with the same aspect of power of Court under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint which is cleverly drafted, if on a meaningful reading of it, there is manifest, vexatious and meritless litigation in the suit and also to reject the plaint on the grounds 12 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 enumerated under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. In the suit in that case, partition deed, dated 11.03.1953, was challenged in the year 2014. 13. There is no quarrel over the principles of law regarding the scope and authority of Court under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C referred in the above decision at paragraph No.5 by citing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam (3 supra), Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity Commissioner [(2004)3 SCC 137] and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal [(2017) 13 SCC 174]. It is clear that one of the grounds to reject the plaint is suit being barred by any law which includes the law of limitation. It cannot be overcome by clever drafting. 14. Therefore, what is to be examined is the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs in the present case. 15. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Fatehji and Company and Another Vs. L. M. Nagpal and others7 in which the plaint was sought to be rejected on the ground of limitation in a suit for specific performance. This case was also decided in the light of the facts pleaded in the plaint. This case would support the petitioner only to the extent that a plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation. It cannot support the petitioner for the purpose of rejecting the plaint in the present case based on the facts pleaded in the plaint. 16. In the case on hand, admittedly, there is a stipulation in the suit agreement of sale that it shall be performed on or before 16.09.2011. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the suit filed on 20.09.2021 is beyond limitation of three (3) years from the time stipulated in the 7 AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 2301 13 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 agreement. Whether the time stipulated in the agreement is essence of the contract or not depends on the contentions of both parties and therefore, it would involve not only the question of law but also the facts to decide whether time stipulated in the agreement was intended by both parties to be the essence of the contract or not. It is pertinent to mention that in the notice issued by the petitioner on 20.09.2011, there was an offer to execute the sale deed. Therefore, even beyond the stipulated date of performance of contract, there was an offer extending the time for performance of the contract. Consequently, it is a mixed question of fact and law to decide the question of limitation in the present case. If time stipulated in the contract is not the essence of the contract, the period of limitation does not start from 16.09.2011, whereas if the time stipulated in the contract is to be essence, the period of time would start from 17.09.2011 onwards. As such, from a mere reading of the averments in the plaint, in the light of the above circumstances including the notice, it cannot be said that plaint can be rejected out rightly by counting the period of limitation from the date stipulated in the agreement. 17. That apart, the respondents / plaintiffs further contended that they are entitled to exclusion of time while counting the period of limitation, the period during which the revision petitioner is outside India as admittedly, she has been residing abroad. As per Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act, 1963, time during which the defendant has been absent from India and from the territory outside India under administration of Central Government shall be excluded. As per the pleadings in the plaint, the revision petitioner fled to foreign country even before the date of time stipulated in the agreement, i.e., 16.09.2011 and got issued notice, dated 20.09.2011, in her absence. On the other hand, the 1st 14 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 defendant denied the same. It is a fact which is to be tried. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant has absconded all through and therefore, the suit could not be filed against her. But, the defendant No.1 contended that she has been to India now and then to attend functions in her family and the plaintiffs were aware of the same. This fact is also subject to trial. 18. Nextly, it is also contended that since the 1st defendant executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of her husband / 2nd defendant, before 16.09.2011, i.e., on 29.08.2011, suit could have been filed against the 1st defendant, represented by the 2nd defendant and so, the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The legal notice and the General Power of Attorney are part of material documents filed along with the plaint. Though the suit agreement of sale was executed before the execution of the G.P.A., there is no reference of the said agreement in the G.P.A. As such, it is also a question of fact to be examined whether the said G.P.A. authorises the 2nd defendant in respect of the dispute in this suit. 19. It is also submitted by the plaintiffs that the 2nd defendant has also been outside India and such period is also to be excluded by virtue of Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act, 1963. This fact is also yet another material fact to be decided on trial. Merely because a G.P.A. is executed, without examining the scope of the authority given under the said document, no one can come to a conclusion in the present case about the authority of the defendant No.2 to represent the defendant No.1. The decision of the High Court of Judicature at Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in P. Pushpamala Reddy Vs. Janga Raghava 15 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 Reddy8 referred by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner does not support the petitioner as it was decided in the light of the facts in that case on different set of facts. However, general principles of law and the object of Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C mentioned at paragraph No.6 are helpful, which reads as below: “6. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are couched in liberal terms so as to vest the trial Court with the power of rejecting the plaint at the threshold so that the valuable time of the Court is not wasted in adjudicating frivolous suits which could be rejected in limine. The opinion of the trial Court that a separate issue could be framed as to the rejection of the plaint and that the same could be gone into in the main suit after a full- fledged trial is completely retrograde and lacks proper understanding of the objective and purpose underlying the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.” 20. The power of attorney referred in the case cited therein was examined and found that no power to sell or enter into an agreement of sale was confirmed upon attorney. Therefore, it was found that there is no cause of action to enforce the agreement of sale executed basing on such power of attorney. 21. In the case on hand, a bare reading of the averments in the plaint along with the documents enclosed thereto, do not indicate that the suit is barred by limitation out-rightly, but, on the other hand, they would indicate that several facts are to be tried and moreover, the period of limitation shall also to be decided in the light of Section 15(5) of the 8 2015 (3) ALD 508 16 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2213 of 2025 Limitation Act. Therefore, there must be a specific issue framed on the question of limitation and all these aspects shall be tried and decided. As such, the question of limitation in the present case is a mixed question of fact and law which cannot be decided without taking evidence. Therefore, this Court does not see any error in the order of the trial Court dismissing the petition. 22. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made regarding the question of limitation including the application of Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act etc., are made for the purpose of decision in the present revision petition only and have no bearing on the adjudication of the lis during the course of trial. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 18.11.2025 RAR