Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC | If Limitation Is Not Apparent From Plaint, Suit Cannot Be Rejected At Threshold: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“When the Defendant Disputes the Date of First Cause of Action, Limitation Becomes a Mixed Question of Law and Fact Requiring Trial”, Andhra Pradesh High Court recently reiterated that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure merely on the basis of a disputed plea of limitation. The Court emphasized that only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents filed along with it can be considered, and where the date of first accrual of cause of action itself is disputed, the issue becomes a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence at trial.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati dismissed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, upholding the Trial Court’s order refusing to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held that the suit could not be terminated at the threshold since the bar of limitation was not apparent on the face of the plaint.

The dispute concerned a property over which the plaintiff claimed title and possession. The respondent–plaintiff had initially filed O.S. No. 1492 of 2005 before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants to restrain interference with the suit property.

In that earlier suit, the defendants filed a written statement disputing certain aspects of the plaintiff’s title. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed on 04 July 2016, and the appeal filed by the plaintiff (A.S. No.155 of 2016) was later dismissed as not pressed.

Subsequently, the plaintiff instituted a fresh suit O.S. No.230 of 2021 before the XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction over the same property.

During the pendency of this suit, the defendants filed an application I.A. No.474 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s title had already been denied in the written statement filed in the 2005 suit, and therefore the right to sue for declaration first accrued in 2005. Since Article 58 prescribes three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues, they contended that the 2021 suit was clearly time-barred.

The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the question of limitation could not be decided at the preliminary stage, leading the defendants to approach the High Court through a revision petition under Article 227.

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the plaint in O.S. No.230 of 2021 could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

The petitioners argued that limitation is a pure question of law and can be decided even at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. According to them, the written statement filed in 2005 clearly denied the plaintiff’s title, which triggered the first accrual of the right to sue for declaration.

The plaintiff, however, contended that the cause of action arose only on 15 August 2021, when the defendants allegedly attempted to trespass and falsely claimed ownership over the suit property. It was argued that the defendants were misconstruing the earlier pleadings, and that the limitation issue involved disputed facts requiring evidence.

The Court examined the statutory framework under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the limitation provision contained in Article 58, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for suits seeking declaration, commencing from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC

The High Court reiterated the settled principle that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the Court is confined strictly to the plaint and the documents filed along with it.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, the Court observed:

“The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold… However, the power being drastic, the conditions enumerated in the provision must be strictly satisfied.”

The Court emphasized that defence pleas raised in the written statement or in the application under Order VII Rule 11 cannot be considered at this stage.

Justice Tilhari clarified:

“A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) only when the statements in the plaint itself clearly show that the suit is barred by law.”

Thus, unless the bar of limitation is evident from the plaint itself, the plaint cannot be rejected.

Meaning of “Right to Sue First Accrues” under Article 58

The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, which explained the significance of the expression “right to sue first accrues” used in Article 58.

The Court noted that the legislature deliberately introduced the word “first” to ensure that successive or continuing causes of action cannot extend the limitation period once the initial cause of action has arisen.

However, the High Court clarified that the principle applies only where the date of first accrual is clearly established. Where the parties dispute that date, the matter requires factual adjudication based on evidence.

Disputed Date of Cause of Action

In the present case, the plaint clearly stated that the cause of action arose on 15 August 2021, when the defendants allegedly attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and claimed ownership.

The defendants, however, contended that the cause of action had arisen much earlier in 2005, when they denied the plaintiff’s title in the written statement filed in the earlier suit.

The High Court held that once such a dispute arises regarding the first accrual of cause of action, the question of limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact.

Justice Tilhari observed:

“If the defendant disputes the date mentioned in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action and sets up another date, the question as to when the cause of action first accrued would require evidence and cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”

Therefore, the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold.

Whether the Earlier Written Statement Amounted to Denial of Title

The Court also examined the defendants’ contention that the earlier written statement in O.S. No.1492 of 2005 contained a clear denial of the plaintiff’s title.

The defendants relied on an observation recorded in the earlier judgment stating that:

“The plaintiff has no right over property since late Panchadarla Appayyamma does not have exclusive right to alienate the property.”

However, the High Court found that this statement did not amount to a complete or unequivocal denial of title.

Justice Tilhari explained that the defendants’ plea was essentially that the plaintiff’s vendor’s vendor did not possess exclusive ownership, which did not necessarily amount to a total denial of the plaintiff’s title.

The Court noted:

“‘No exclusive title’ does not mean denial of title altogether. It only indicates that the person may not be the sole owner.”

Consequently, the earlier statement could not conclusively establish that the cause of action for declaration had first arisen in 2005.

Limitation in Suits for Declaration with Consequential Relief

Before concluding, the High Court also addressed another important legal aspect relating to limitation in suits seeking declaration along with additional reliefs.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, the Court observed that where a suit seeks declaration along with a consequential relief such as possession or injunction, the declaration may become ancillary to the principal relief.

In such situations, the limitation period may be governed by the provision applicable to the principal relief, such as Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which provides twelve years for recovery of possession based on title.

The Court clarified that this question would remain open for determination by the Trial Court during the trial.

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ultimately held that the bar of limitation was not apparent on the face of the plaint, and since the date of first accrual of cause of action was disputed, the issue required adjudication based on evidence during trial.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, upholding the Trial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and leaving the question of limitation open to be decided during trial.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court’s order did not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Date of Decision: 27 February 2026