Shobha Vasant Bhoir vs Soni @ Vandana Gurumukhdas Jagiasi

2026 INSC 664
NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27748 of 2025)


SHOBHA VASANT BHOIR & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)


VERSUS
SONI @ VANDANA
GURUMUKHDAS JAGIASI &
ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)


J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order
dated 30.06.2025 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 242 of
2024 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which affirmed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.07.01
15:10:14 IST
Reason:
the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division,
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 1 of 12

Kalyan in Exh. 42 & 45 in Special Civil Suit No. 80/2022 whereby
an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1 2
1908 filed by the appellants came to be rejected.

3. The present lis arises over Plot No. 1480, Ulhasnagar,
3
Maharashtra . The case put forth by the appellants before us is that,
one Mr. Tukaram Daji Bhoir, was the original owner of the subject
property and predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. In 1974, the
Development Plan for the Ulhasnagar township was finalized
wherein certain lands were reserved in public interest to provide
infrastructure in the form of roads and other amenities. Those
affected thereof were to be rehabilitated with alternate sites. The
subject property forms part of the same.

4
4. It is alleged that the respondents herein purportedly entered
into an unregistered agreement to sell over the subject property with
the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on 21.08.1984. A Power
of Attorney was issued in favor of Bhagwan Hukumatrai Rajai-
respondent No. 6 on 28.02.1991. Meanwhile on 13.01.1988
possession of the subject property was handed over to the Managing

1
Hereinafter ‘CPC’.
2
Original Defendants No. 1 – 4.
3
Hereinafter ‘the subject property’.
4
Original Plaintiffs.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 2 of 12

Officer, Ulhasnagar for making the Hill Line Police Station. The
possession of the subject property remains in their possession since.

5. On 15.11.2002, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants
had applied for a Sanad for construction over his plots. On
22.11.2002, the SDO, Ulhasnagar wrote a letter to Tukaram Daji
Bhoir - appellant no.3 stating that as per the Surveyor’s Report, the
said land fell under Site No. 172, which was reserved for a Police
Station and possession thereof was handed over in 1988.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants filed Revision Application No.11 of 2003before the
Authorized Chief Settlement Commissioner, Mumbai under Section
24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
5
1954 . It was stated therein that it is the duty of the SDO concerned
to allot alternate land to him, rather than simpliciter refusal of his
application.

7. Thereafter, it has been stated by the appellants that their
predecessor-in-interest Tukaram Daji Bhoir, filed an Affidavit of
Truth on 01.10.2003 wherein he stated that he had never sold,
mortgaged, gifted, transferred by any general power of attorney,

5
DPCR
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 3 of 12

sale deed, agreement to sell, or any other document to any person .
He passed away on 20.10.2010 and has thereafter been represented
by the appellants, being his legal representatives.

8. Vide order dated 27.12.2016, the Chief Settlement
Commissioner, Mumbai set aside letter dated 22.11.2002 issued by
the SDO and remanded the matter back for fresh enquiry.

9. On remand, the SDO, Ulhasnagar issued a letter dated
20.02.2018 to the appellants to locate and identify suitable alternate
property in lieu of the subject property. On 09.04.2018, the
respondents addressed a letter to the SDO, asking for alternate site
to be allotted to them instead of the appellants. The SDO refused to
take cognizance of the claim by the respondents.

10. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents filed Appeal No. 30 of
2018 before Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The said
appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 07.01.2019. It was
observed that the respondents have not sought any remedy before a
Civil Court and, therefore, it cannot be said whether the sale deed or
transfer is valid in law.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 4 of 12

11. Meanwhile, the SDO, Ulhasnagar issued an allotment letter
in favor of the appellants for alternate properties on 28.02.2019.
Consequently, a Deed of Conveyance was also issued on 02.03.2019
in favor of the appellants. Being aggrieved thereof, the respondents
filed a Writ Petition bearing number 2859 of 2019 before the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay.

12. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the appellants
executed registered sale deeds over the alternative properties
allotted.

13. The High Court vide order dated 17.11.2021 dismissed the
Writ Petition preferred by the respondents. It was observed that the
subject property belongs to the Government. Moreover, the
respondent had not initiated any civil proceedings to date, to
establish their substantive rights over the subject property.

14. Thereafter, on 03.03.2022 the respondents filed a Civil Suit
bearing registration number Special Civil Suit No. 80 of 2022
seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated
21.08.1994 and other consequential reliefs before the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Kalyan, Maharashtra.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 5 of 12

15. The appellants herein filed two applications under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint as the suit was
barred by limitation. It was stated therein that the suit was based on
an unregistered instrument from 1984, and the suit was filed with an
undue delay of thirty-eight years. Consequently, the suit is barred
under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Upon consideration of
the application, the Trial Court vide order dated 30.09.2023 rejected
the applications seeking rejection of the suit. The Trial Court
observed that from the plaint, it did not appear that the suit was
totally barred by limitation.


16. Dissatisfied, the appellants approached the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay vide Revision Application No. 242 of 2024
under Section 115 of the CPC. Vide the impugned order the High
Court rejected the civil revision and affirmed the order passed by the
Trial Court. It was observed that there is no illegality or perversity
in the reasons recorded by the Trial Court.

17. We have heard the learned senior counsel on behalf of the
appellants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
and the learned amicus curiae.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 6 of 12

18. For ready reference Order 7 Rule 11, which pertains to
rejection of plaint, reads as follows:

“11. Rejection of plaint . - The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to
do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the
plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and
the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply
the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by
the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law:
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision
of rule 9:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was
prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for
correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed
by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would
cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

19. The purpose behind the remedy under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is
to prevent protracted proceedings in a civil suit, which on a plain
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 7 of 12

reading itself is barred by law. While considering the scope of such
an application under Order 7 Rule 11, this Court in Dahiben v.
6
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali had observed:

“ 23.2 . The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent
and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to
summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding
to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the
evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be
terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

23.3 . The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in
a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by
limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the
plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit.
In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham
litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.”
(emphasis supplied)

20. More recently, this Court in Correspondence, RBANMS
7
Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar and Anr . had observed
to similar effect:
“14.1. Thus, it is clear that the above provision viz ., Order VII
Rule 11 CPC serves as a crucial filter in civil litigation,
enabling courts to terminate proceedings at the threshold
where the plaintiff's case, even if accepted in its entirety, fails
to disclose any cause of action or is barred by law, either
express or by implication. The scope of Order VII Rule
11 CPC and the authority of the courts is well settled in law.
There is a bounden duty on the Court to discern and identify
fictitious suit, which on the face of it would be barred, but for
the clever pleadings disclosing a cause of action, that is surreal.

6
(2020) 7 SCC 562.
7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 793.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 8 of 12

Generally, sub-clauses (a) and (d) are stand alone grounds, that
can be raised by the defendant in a suit. However, it cannot be
ruled out that under certain circumstances, clauses (a) and (d)
can be mutually inclusive. For instances, when clever drafting
veils the implied bar to disclose the cause of action; it then
becomes the duty of the Court to lift the veil and expose the
bar to reject the suit at the threshold. The power to reject a
plaint under this provision is not merely procedural but
substantive, aimed at preventing abuse of the judicial process
and ensuring that court time is not wasted on fictitious claims
failing to disclose any cause of action to sustain the suit or
barred by law.”
(emphasis supplied)

21. It is settled law that the contents of the plaint have to be read
as a whole, to ascertain the application of conditions enumerated
under Order 7 Rule 11. This Court in Madansuri Sri Rama Chandra
8
Murthy v. Syed Jalal had observed:

“7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if
conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is
needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC
can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The
relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the
application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire
and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not
disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power
under Order 7 Rule 11CPC. Since the power conferred on the
Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the
conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11CPC to the
exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly
adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a
whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of

8
(2017) 13 SCC 174.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 9 of 12

action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless
to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by
any law, would always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The averments in the written
statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are
wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the
defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations
made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their
face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or
do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of
plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule
11CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has
created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in
the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the
earlier stage.”
(emphasis supplied)


22. In the above backdrop, we now proceed to examine the case at
hand. Upon a complete reading of the contents of the plaint, it is
evident that the foundation of the case of the respondents is the
agreement dated 21.08.1984. We find no warranted explanation as to
why no suit was initiated for execution of the Conveyance Deed for
more than three decades. Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963
clearly specifies that the period of limitation for a suit of specific
performance is three years.

23. Moreover, the High Court vide order dated 17.11.2021 has
categorically noted that there is nothing on record to show that
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 10 of 12

possession of the subject property is with the respondents.
Pertinently, no appeal was preferred against this observation.

24. We are not inclined to accept the submissions of the
respondents that the period of limitation will run from the date of
order of the High Court mentioned above. In our view, the High
Court simply made a categorical observation that till date the
respondents have not filed any substantive civil suit to establish their
rights qua the subject property. In our view, by no stretch of
imagination can this observation become the basis for a fresh period
limitation or fresh basis for finally filing such a suit.

25. The appellants have rightly placed reliance on the exposition
of this Court in Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant
9
Chhatrapati Udayan Praje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr . .
Therein this Court while allowing the application under Order 7
Rule 11 reiterated that the period of limitation will begin to run from
the date when the right to sue first accrues and consequently held
the suit to be barred by limitation.

26. In such a factual circumstance, we find substance in the
argument put forth by the learned senior counsel for the appellants,

9
(2024) 15 SCC 675.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 11 of 12

that the suit is clearly barred by limitation in the eyes of law. A
litigant who has remained silent for decades cannot be permitted to
file a suit as an afterthought, in ignorance of the laws of limitation.

27. Consequently, the present suit filed by the respondents is an
abuse of process of the Court and barred by law.


28. In view of the above, the orders of the Courts below cannot
be sustained. The present appeal is allowed and the order of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 30.06.2025 passed in Civil
Revision Application No. 242 of 2024 is set aside.

29. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.


……………………………………………… J.
(SANJAY KAROL)




………..…………………………………….. J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

New Delhi
July 1, 2026
C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27748 of 2025 Page 12 of 12