Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order that had rejected a civil suit at the threshold as time-barred, and restored the trial court’s decision to proceed with the case. The Court clarified that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be decided solely on the averments made in the plaint, without considering the defendant’s defence or any external material. The dispute concerned ownership and possession of agricultural land, where the plaintiffs challenged a will and mutation entries. Holding that the questions of limitation and adverse possession involved mixed issues of fact and law, the Court directed trial to continue.

The appeals arose from two orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had allowed a revision petition filed by the defendants and rejected the plaintiffs’ civil suit as barred by limitation. The plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership over agricultural land, possession, damages for use and occupation, and a permanent injunction. They claimed title through natural succession from the original owner’s widow, asserting that a will produced by the defendants was fraudulent and void. The defendants relied on the alleged will executed by the widow in 1976, which was the basis for mutation entries in their favour after her death in 1983. The plaintiffs contended that the mutation proceedings ended only in 2017, and the suit filed in 2019 was within the limitation period.

Also Read: District Judge Direct Appointment | Eligibility To Be Assessed On Application Date; Breaks In Practice Disqualify 7-Year Mandate, Combined Bar-Judicial Experience Counted — Supreme Court

The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint as time-barred and invoking Order II Rule 2 CPC, citing a previous suit filed by the plaintiffs’ predecessor in 2012. The trial court dismissed the application, finding that limitation and the applicability of Order II Rule 2 were mixed questions of fact and law. However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that the suit was instituted 36 years after the mutation and was thus barred by time.

The plaintiffs challenged the High Court’s orders before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had erred in relying on the defendant’s defence rather than the plaint averments while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The matter involved interpretation of provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Limitation Act, particularly Article 65 of the Schedule, concerning possession based on title.

The Supreme Court observed that under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, “only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defense is not to be considered.” The Bench stated that the High Court erred by taking into account the defendants’ version while ignoring the averments in the plaint.

It recorded that “mutation entries do not confer title. They serve a fiscal purpose, that is, to realize tax from the person whose name is recorded in the revenue records.” Referring to the plaint, the Court noted that the mutation proceedings had concluded in 2017, and the suit instituted within three years thereafter could not be termed ex facie barred by limitation.

The Court stated that the suit was “not for a mere declaration of the will being null and void but for possession as well,” and in such cases, “where a suit is for possession of immovable property based on title, the limitation period is 12 years when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse.” The Bench further observed that questions of adverse possession and limitation “are mixed questions of law and fact and cannot be decided at the threshold.”

Also Read: Migrants Cannot Claim State-Specific Backward Class Benefits in Punjab Recruitment: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Supreme Court stated that “the order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order(s) of the High Court are set aside. The order of the trial court rejecting the prayer to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is restored.”

“The trial court shall proceed with the suit and bring the proceedings to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. Any observation made by us shall not be taken as an opinion on the merit of the issues which may arise for consideration in the course of the suit proceedings.”

“Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Case Title: Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1238
Case Number: Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3560–3561 of 2023
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra