Pendency of a Third-Party Suit Cannot Extend Limitation Period for Asserting One’s Own Right: Bombay High Court Rejects 43-Year-Delayed Suit as Vexatious and Time-Barred

“If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing” – In a sharply worded judgment Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the plea for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar held that a suit filed in 2022 to challenge sale deeds executed in 1972 and 1975 was “clearly barred by limitation” and the cause of action pleaded was “illusory and a product of clever drafting.” The Court set aside the trial court’s refusal to reject the plaint and called for an end to sham litigation that wastes judicial time and weaponizes delay.

The suit (RCS No. 106/2022) was filed by Babanrao Narbaji More, seeking declaration of 1/3rd ownership in land bearing Survey No. 3 (Gut No. 28) in village Rahimpur, District Nanded, along with reliefs against alienation of the property through two registered sale deeds—dated 09.06.1972 and 04.07.1975. The plaintiff alleged that these sales, carried out by his uncles and brother during his minority, were not binding on his share.

He further claimed that since a third-party civil suit involving the same land had been pending from 1971 to 2021, his right to sue only crystallized upon its dismissal in December 2021.

The defendants, including Ravi Bhaskar Wattamwar and others, moved for rejection of the plaint, arguing that the cause of action was fictitious and the reliefs hopelessly barred by limitation, given that the plaintiff had attained majority in 1978 and the suit was filed 43 years later.

The High Court framed the central issues: whether a legitimate cause of action was disclosed in the plaint, and whether the suit was barred by limitation on the face of the pleadings and documents.

Justice Chapalgaonkar critically noted:

“The plaintiff attained majority in the year 1978 and was aware about transactions excluding his alleged right... In this background, plaintiff has no explanation for 43 years delay to assail infringement of his right.”

Rejecting the plaintiff’s reliance on the dismissal of an unrelated suit in 2021, the Court held: “The dismissal of suit instituted by Tuljaram in the year 2021 is absolutely irrelevant to constitute cause of action... There was no impediment to plaintiff to assert his own right claiming that those sale deeds are invalid or not binding.”

The Court reiterated that limitation can be decided at the threshold, quoting the Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali: “The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11(d) is that if a suit is barred by limitation... the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings.”

Referring to the seminal decision in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, the Court warned against abuse of drafting technique: “If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC.”

The Court stressed that the trial court “got trapped in camouflage” and failed to assess the plaint meaningfully.

“The Trial Court failed to cautiously apply its mind to averments in plaint... and allowed the sham to proceed.”

On limitation, the Court pointed out that even assuming disability during minority, the outermost period to challenge the 1972 and 1975 deeds expired in 1990.

“Even for relief of partition, twelve years period of limitation expired in the year 1990. Present suit is filed in the year 2022. It is hopelessly barred.”

Setting aside the order of the trial court dated 19.12.2022, the Bombay High Court held that the plaint did not disclose a valid cause of action and was ex-facie barred by limitation. It ruled that entertaining such suits only prolongs groundless litigation and clogs the judicial system.

“This Court holds that the plaint is liable to be rejected since it sans cause of action and barred by limitation.”

The Court allowed the Civil Revision Applications, and rejected the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.106/2022, ending what it termed “a product of clever drafting and camouflage.”

Date of Decision: 9th May 2025