Date Event Description
16.01.201 The plaintiff/respondent issued a registered legal notice to the petitioner/defendant
7 regarding the matter in dispute, indicating an initial step towards legal proceedings.
17.04.201 A criminal case (No. 281/2017) was filed and registered by the plaintiff/respondent
7 at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur, escalating the dispute into legal action at the
police level.
04.06.202 The plaintiff/respondent alleged that the cause of action arose on this date, claiming
3 that the petitioner/defendant attempted to forcefully dispossess the plaintiff from
the property.
17.12.202 The Trial Court heard arguments and passed an order dismissing the petitioner’s
4 application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner claimed the court failed to
consider key legal facts.
Summary of the Case
The case involves a dispute between the plaintiff/respondent, Gopal Lal Meena, and the
petitioner/defendant, M/s R.R. City Developers LLP. The plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit
for declaration, cancellation of the sale deed, and permanent injunction under Order 7 Rule
1 and 2 of CPC, along with an application for a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
read with Section 151 of CPC.
The timeline of events is as follows:
1. Legal Action Initiated by Plaintiff (2017): The plaintiff issued a registered legal notice
on 16.01.2017 and filed a criminal case (No. 281/2017) on 17.04.2017. These actions
were alleged to form the cause of action in the dispute.
2. Delay in Filing Suit: Despite the cause of action arising in 2017, the plaintiff filed the
civil suit on 04.06.2023, after six years.
3. Petitioner's Response: The petitioner filed a written statement opposing the suit and
raised an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, asserting that the suit was barred by
limitation as per Sections 17, 58, and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner
argued that the limitation period of three years had expired.
4. Trial Court's Order (17.12.2024): The Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s
application, stating that the alleged cause of action arose on 04.06.2023, as claimed by
the plaintiff, and thus the suit was not barred.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the Trial Court's dismissal, has filed a revision petition before the
High Court, seeking to set aside the order.
Grounds Taken by the Petitioner
The petitioner challenges the Trial Court’s order on several legal and factual grounds,
summarized as follows:
1. Exercise of Jurisdiction Not Vested by Law:
o The Trial Court acted without proper jurisdiction and failed to apply the
provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which allow for the rejection of a plaint if it
discloses no cause of action or is barred by law.
2. Barred by Limitation:
o The plaintiff admitted in the plaint that the cause of action arose in 2017 when a
legal notice was issued (16.01.2017) and a criminal case was registered
(17.04.2017). The suit, filed in 2023, was time-barred under Sections 17, 58, and
59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribe a limitation period of three years.
3. False Cause of Action:
o The plaintiff cleverly alleged a false cause of action on 04.06.2023 to overcome
the limitation period. However, the averments in the plaint contradict this claim.
4. Improper Consideration of Pleadings:
o The Trial Court erred by considering extraneous evidence and surmises while
deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It failed to limit its
examination to the averments in the plaint, as required by law.
5. Possession of Property:
o The Trial Court’s finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed
property was contrary to police investigations. The police had proposed a closure
report (F.R.) in the criminal case, indicating that the plaintiff's claim of possession
was unsubstantiated.
6. Violation of Precedents:
o The Trial Court disregarded the legal precedent set in Dahiben v. Arvind Bhai
Kalyanji Bhansali [(2020) SCC Online 563], which emphasizes rejecting a plaint
at the threshold if it discloses no cause of action or is time-barred. The petitioner
argued that the Trial Court’s decision contravened this settled principle.
7. Failure to Consider Evidence on Record:
o The Trial Court selectively relied on the plaintiff's documents while ignoring the
petitioner’s written statement and supporting evidence.
8. Prejudice Against the Petitioner:
o The Trial Court’s decision resulted in a miscarriage of justice and unduly
prolonged sham litigation, contrary to the object of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
9. Improper Interpretation of Cause of Action:
o The Trial Court emphasized the plaintiff's claim that the cause of action arose in
2023 due to the defendant's alleged attempt to dispossess the plaintiff. However,
the petitioner argued that the court should have focused on the earlier actions of
2017, which were material to the limitation period.
10. Jurisdiction of High Court Under Section 115 CPC:
o The petitioner invoked Section 115 CPC, stating that the High Court has the
power to reverse the Trial Court’s erroneous order, which would lead to the
dismissal of the suit.
Relief Sought
The petitioner has requested the Hon’ble High Court to:
1. Call for the entire record of the case.
2. Quash and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 17.12.2024.
3. Allow the petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismiss the civil suit
filed by the plaintiff.
The petitioner further prays for any other order or direction deemed appropriate by the Hon’ble
Court in light of the facts and circumstances.
Let me know if you’d like to refine this further or include additional legal references.
