The Supreme Court has rejected a suit filed in 2022 seeking division and allotment of a 44% share in land and built-up area, holding that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 2016 and subsequent communications did not create a fresh cause of action.
A Bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by N Asha Devi and set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court that had refused to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The dispute arose from two Joint Venture Agreements executed on August 18, 2014, concerning two vacant plots measuring a total of 4,800 sq. ft. The agreements contemplated construction of eight flats, with 56% of the super built-up area going to the original owners and 44% of the undivided share in the land and super built-up area going to the respondent.
The appellant contended that the construction was not completed within the stipulated period of 15 months and therefore cancelled the Joint Venture Agreements through a communication dated April 20, 2016. Further communications and legal notices followed in July, August, September and November 2016.
The respondent subsequently filed O.S. No. 632 of 2022 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking division and allotment of the alleged 44% share.
The Supreme Court relied on the principle that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, the court must examine the averments contained in the plaint and the documents annexed to it.
Referring to its earlier decision in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle, the Court reiterated that although limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law, a plaint can be rejected where the bar of limitation is apparent from the pleadings themselves.
The Bench then examined paragraph 17 of the plaint, where the plaintiff itself had set out the alleged cause of action.
The Court found that the cause of action arose on April 20, 2016, when the appellant communicated the cancellation of the Joint Venture Agreements. The subsequent communications merely highlighted the continuing dispute arising from that cancellation and did not create a fresh cause of action.
The respondent argued that a fresh cause of action arose on June 8, 2022, when a public notice was issued cautioning third parties against purchasing the properties.
The Supreme Court rejected the contention, holding that the 2022 publication did not create a fresh cause of action. According to the Court, the publication was made in the respondent's own interest and itself came after an unexplained delay.
The Court observed that the suit filed in October 2022 was grossly delayed from 2016, including from the last relevant communication dated November 22, 2016.
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no reason to sustain the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court.
It accordingly set aside both orders and directed that the plaint in O.S. No. 632 of 2022 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, shall stand rejected.
The appeal was allowed and all pending applications were disposed of.
The judgment was pronounced on August 17, 2026, by Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Gopalan, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shubham Kothari, Adv. Mrs. Aiyushi Daga, Adv. Mr. Atul Kundlia, Adv. Mr. Gowthamkumar V, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, AOR Ms. Archana Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.p. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rao Raj Bahadur Singh, Adv. Mr. A. Sai Kumar, Adv.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy