Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 5 Civ Suit 545/24
Rajeshwar Sahay Vs. Suresh Chand
29.10.2025
Present: Sh. Hemant Pathak, Ld. counsel for plaintiff through
VC.
Sh. Vikrant Tyagi, Ld. proxy counsel for defendant
no. 1.
Sh. Parvinder Sharma, Ld. counsel for defendant no.
2 through VC.
At request by defendant no. 1, matter is passed over
for 11 AM.
Ajay Kumar Malik
JSCC/ASCJ/G.Judge (N/E)
29.10.2025
At 12:38 PM.
Present: Sh. Hemant Pathak, Ld. counsel for plaintiff through
VC.
Sh. Garvit Vinayak, Ld. LAC counsel for defendant
no. 1.
Arguments advanced at length on an application u/o
7 Rule 11 CPC.
Orders during the course of the day.
Ajay Kumar Malik
JSCC/ASCJ/G.Judge (N/E)
29.10.2025
-- 1 of 3 --
At 03:25 PM.
Present: None.
By this order, I shall dispose of the application u/o 7
Rule 11 CPC filed by defendant no. 1/applicant.
Arguments advanced at length from both sides.
It is settled law that while considering an application
under Order VII Rule XI CPC and the prayer for rejection of the
plaint, only averments of plaint are material and can be taken into
consideration and any evidence or averments made in the written
statement cannot be considered.
In
Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and
Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557 (Judgment dated 04.10.2019), a reference
judgment by a three-judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it
has been noted as follows:
“63. ……What is of significance under Order VII Rule 11
is that from the averments of plaint itself the suit is barred
by any law and it would include limitation also including
bar created by any other law for the time being in force. For
the rejection of plaint, averments made by the defendant in
the written statement or otherwise cannot be seen, only the
averments of the plaint are material and can be taken into
consideration and no other evidence.”
In
Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. Versus Nasyam
Jamal Saheb & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023 (Judgment
dated 28.04.2023) Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted as follows:
“7.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) is
concerned, again there cannot be any dispute with respect to
the proposition of law laid down by this Court that while
deciding the application under Order VII Rule XI, mainly
the averments in the plaint only are required to be
considered and not the averments in the written statement.
….”
-- 2 of 3 --
Perusal of plaint shows that the plaintiff gave an
amount of Rs. 50,000/- to defendant no. 2 in the case of
defendant no. 1 and also Rs. 65,000/- from the bank account of
plaintiff by the court order of RCS in the case of defendant no. 1.
The plaintiff has claimed the interest on amount from March,
2020. Even otherwise, if we give benefit of time of 90 days to the
plaintiff as per order in suo moto writ petition no. 3/20 passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, then also the suit of plaintiff is
out of limitation if the limitation period is reckoned from
04.03.2020 as the suit has been filed on 18.11.2024 i.e. much
beyond three years from 04.03.2020. Accordingly, the present
suit is barred by law of limitation and plaint is rejected u/o 7 Rule
11(d) CPC.
File be consigned to record room.
Ajay Kumar Malik
JSCC/ASCJ/G.Judge (N/E)
29.10.2025
-- 3 of 3 --