Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a civil first appeal and set aside a 2003 trial court order rejecting a suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that disputed questions concerning limitation and jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be conclusively and decided at the threshold when they require appreciation of evidence.
Limitation Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence Where Facts Are Disputed
Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali observed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff.
Rejection under Rule 11(d) is justified only when the suit, on the face of the plaint itself, appears to be barred by law.
The Court also noted that in a suit if the date of refusal and accrual of cause of action are disputed, limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence.
Agricultural Land Alone Does Not Bar Civil Court Jurisdiction
Justice Shrimali also rejected the contention that merely because the subject property was agricultural land, the civil suit was barred and could only be entertained by the Revenue Court.
The court held that ouster of civil court jurisdiction must be strictly construed, and the mere nature of the property as agricultural land does not by itself establish that the civil court lacks jurisdiction.
For the context, the dispute arose from, 1982 agreement to sell, pursuant to which the appellant had sought specific performance. The suit was instituted in 1995, but the trial court rejected the plaint in 2003 on grounds including limitation and civil court jurisdiction.
On that the, Court said questions of enforceability, cause of action and limitation required trial and could not be decided at the preliminary stage.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the 2003 trial court order.
The parties have been directed to appear before the trial court on October 28, 2026.