Supreme Court of India

Dahiben v Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali

(2020) 7 SCC 36620201 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiffs filed a suit to cancel a registered sale deed they had executed several years earlier, alleging that the full consideration had not been paid.
Issue
Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under O.VII R.11 as barred by limitation and disclosing no cause of action.
Held
The Court explained that O.VII R.11 is an independent remedy to end a sham suit at the threshold, decided on the plaint and the documents filed with it. On the plaintiffs' own averments the suit was filed long after the limitation period and disclosed no real cause of action, so the plaint was rightly rejected.
Principle
Under O.VII R.11 the court reads only the plaint and its documents, and must reject a plaint that is barred on its face or discloses no real cause of action.
Cite this

Facts

  • The plaintiffs filed a suit to cancel a registered sale deed they had executed several years earlier, alleging that the full consideration had not been paid.

Issue

  1. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under O.VII R.11 as barred by limitation and disclosing no cause of action.

Held

  • The Court explained that O.VII R.11 is an independent remedy to end a sham suit at the threshold, decided on the plaint and the documents filed with it. On the plaintiffs' own averments the suit was filed long after the limitation period and disclosed no real cause of action, so the plaint was rightly rejected.

Cite this

Citation

Dahiben v Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366

Reported: Supreme Court of India judgment PDF, diary no. 9337 of 2017 (api.sci.gov.in), judgment dated 9 July 2020. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.