Facts: The non-applicant no.1 (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration and specific performance regarding land agreements dated 06.10.1995 and 21.11.1995. The plaintiff sought a declaration that a sale-deed dated 24.10.2020 executed in favor of the applicant (defendant no.8) via court execution proceedings was void due to fraud and collusion. The applicant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was filed 28 years after the original agreements, and that it failed to disclose a valid cause of action. The plaintiff countered that he only gained knowledge of the unilateral cancellation of the agreements on 01.07.2021 and that the suit was filed within three years of the 2020 sale-deed, making it timely.
Procedural Posture: The trial court rejected the applicant's application for rejection of the plaint. The applicant challenged this order before the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) through a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue: Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the grounds of being barred by limitation and lacking a cause of action, specifically when multiple reliefs are sought and fraud is alleged.
Holding: No, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, refusing to reject the plaint at the threshold.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint must be considered, and the defense's version is irrelevant at this stage. Following the Supreme Court's mandate in "Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh", the Court held that if a suit seeks several reliefs and even one of them is within the limitation period, the entire plaint cannot be rejected. In this case, the challenge to the 2020 sale-deed was filed in 2023, which is prima facie within limitation. Furthermore, since the plaintiff alleged fraud and claimed knowledge of the agreement cancellation only in 2021, the issue of limitation became a mixed question of fact and law that requires a full trial and evidence rather than summary dismissal. The Court also noted that the existence of parallel execution objections does not bar a substantive suit where the reliefs sought are different.