Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance

"Plaintiff Tried to Camouflage a Time-Barred Suit Under the Illusion of Cause of Action" – In a decisive blow against abuse of court process through strategic pleading, the Gujarat High Court rejecting a civil suit for specific performance based on an oral agreement allegedly made in 2008, holding it ex facie barred by limitation. Justice J.C. Doshi, allowing a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC, set aside the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint and directed that the suit be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The core issue before the Court was whether a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell land, instituted in 2015, could survive in light of the plaintiff’s own averments that the refusal to perform the contract arose in 2010.

"Limitation Begins When Refusal Is Manifest, Not When Convenient to Plead" – Court Applies Article 54 of Limitation Act

Justice Doshi emphasized that Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes three years as the limitation for filing suits for specific performance, either from the date fixed for performance or, where no such date is fixed, from the date the plaintiff has notice of refusal.

The plaintiff had filed the suit in 2015, alleging that the oral agreement was made in August 2008 and that the defendant's refusal became clear in September 2010, when the defendant executed a sale deed in his own favour and launched a housing project on the suit land.

“Judged against this statutory mandate, the suit is, ex facie, barred by limitation,” the Court held. “The plaintiff has, by resorting to clever, nay, dexterous drafting, attempted to circumvent and camouflage the bar of limitation; however, such artifice cannot be countenanced by a court of law.” [Para 18]

The plaint was silent on the exact terms, date, or parties present at the alleged oral agreement. The Court held that the absence of these foundational averments rendered the claim vague, speculative, and devoid of any meaningful cause of action.

“Illusory Cause of Action Must Be Nipped in the Bud” – Reiterates T. Arivandandam Doctrine

Relying on the classic precedent T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, Justice Doshi restated the law that:

“If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing... An activist judge is the answer to irresponsible lawsuits.” [Para 7]

He further cited Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commissioner and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murty v. Syed Jalal to underscore that when a suit is manifestly meritless or barred by limitation, the plaint must be rejected without wasting judicial time

"Even Alternative Prayer for Refund of Money Barred by Article 113" – No Relief on Recovery Either

Apart from the primary prayer for specific performance, the plaintiff had alternatively sought refund of ₹22,00,000, allegedly paid between August and October 2008, along with compensation.

However, the Court applied Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which governs suits not specifically covered elsewhere and provides a 3-year limitation period from when the right to sue accrues. The last alleged payment being on 27.10.2008, the suit filed in 2015 was clearly time-barred even for the refund claim.

“Whether the relief sought pertains to specific performance of the purported oral agreement or to the recovery of the money alleged to have been paid, both claims are squarely interdicted by the law of limitation,” Justice Doshi held. [Para 18]

The Court clarified that vague, speculative pleadings and clever avoidance of critical dates cannot extend or revive a right extinguished by law.

Plaintiff’s Drafting Tactic Rejected as Abuse of Process – Suit Rejected in Entirety

The trial court had earlier refused to reject the plaint, holding that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. The High Court categorically disagreed, noting that on a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint, the suit was not only barred by law but also devoid of particulars necessary to even show an actionable agreement.

Justice Doshi quoted extensively from Supreme Court precedents like:

• Fatehji and Company v. L.M. Nagpal, (2015) 8 SCC 390

• Umadevi v. Anand Kumar, 2025 AIJEL-SC 75007

• Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, [2023-JT-4-530]

• M/s Goga Enterprise v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, 2023 AIJEL-HC 245991

He concluded: “The learned Trial Court has, therefore, committed a manifest error in declining to reject the plaint.” [Para 18]

Civil Suit Rejected, High Court Reaffirms Limitation as Threshold Bar to Frivolous Litigation

The Court allowed the revision application, quashed the trial court’s order, and rejected the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.36 of 2015, bringing the litigation to an end.

“The suit, on the face of the plaint itself, is patently time-barred... The learned Trial Court shall pass all consequential orders to give effect to this decision.” [Para 20]

This judgment strengthens the legal principle that courts must proactively weed out suits filed with the intent to harass or resurrect stale claims, especially through ambiguous or manipulative drafting.

Date of Decision: 3rd December 2025