Property Suit Cannot Be Dismissed Summarily on Limitation Without Clear Bar: SC

The Supreme Court has said limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and unless the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non-suiting a plaintiff.   

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe restored a Sangamner civil suit seeking cancellation of a 2013 sale deed, setting aside a Bombay High Court decision that had rejected the case at the threshold by holding it barred by limitation. The Supreme Court said the High Court had prematurely terminated the proceedings by treating limitation as an unquestionable bar despite the plaintiffs’ pleadings showing a more recent cause of action. 

A dispute arose between Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole and others, who claim that although a sale deed was executed in July 2013, the deed was a sham document coupled with a development agreement executed on the same day. According to the plaintiffs, the dispute actually erupted only in October 2023, when the first defendant allegedly attempted to interfere with their possession and “show his true colours.” On this basis, they filed a special civil suit in 2023 seeking a declaration of title, an injunction, and cancellation of the decade-old sale deed.

The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the suit was hopelessly delayed and that the allegations of fraud were not adequately pleaded. The trial court rejected this application in April 2024. However, the defendants approached the Bombay High Court, which in April 2025 reversed the trial court and threw out the suit entirely, holding that a challenge brought in 2023 to a 2013 sale deed was clearly barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had failed to meaningfully allege fraud.

The Supreme Court disagreed with both conclusions. It reiterated that limitation is rarely a pure question of law that can be decided without examining evidence, especially when the plaint discloses a later cause of action.

The bench emphasised that unless the bar of limitation is “patently and unequivocally clear,” a court cannot use Order VII Rule 11 to dismiss a suit without trial. Here, the plaintiffs had explicitly stated that defendant no. 1 attempted to grab the property only in 2023, and that this confrontation triggered the present suit. This version, the court said, could not be brushed aside at the preliminary stage.

Court was equally clear that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by scrutinising the sufficiency of fraud pleadings under Order VII Rule 11. It held that such an assessment touches on the merits of the dispute and must be left to trial, particularly where the plaintiffs allege that the sale deed and the development agreement formed a single, sham transaction. Questions about the genuineness of documents, the nature of the parties’ arrangement and the existence of fraud, court said, require evidence and cannot be settled summarily.

The Supreme Court restored the suit and asked the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangamner, to expedite the trial in view of the delays caused by the prolonged litigation over maintainability. It also directed the court to decide the case strictly on the basis of evidence and in accordance with law, without being influenced by observations made either by the High Court or the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the plaintiffs were represented by Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR, and advocate Rishabh Singh, while the respondents were represented by advocate Nishant R. Katneshwarkar along with Somiran Sharma, AOR, and advocates Anuj Fulpagar and Snigdha Shresth.

Case Title: Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole & Ors Vs Rohit Enterprises & Ors

Order Date: November 17, 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe