A declaratory suit filed over three years after first knowledge of title denial is time-barred.

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 6956/2024 seeking a declaration of ownership, possession, mesne profits and consequential relief concerning the suit property.

The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, contending that the plaintiff’s own pleadings showed knowledge of the defendant’s denial of title in 2007, making the 2024 suit time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

Earlier proceedings included suits concerning the property and an unsuccessful attempt to amend a prior plaint to seek a declaration; the High Court had dismissed the resulting writ petition while reserving liberty to file a separate suit in accordance with law.

The trial court dismissed the rejection application, treating limitation as a triable issue and noting that evidence had commenced.

The defendant challenged that order in this revision petition.

1. Whether, on the plaint averments, the declaration suit filed in 2024 was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

2. Whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC could be considered at a belated stage of the proceedings.

Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribes a three-year limitation period for a suit seeking a declaration, running from the date the right to sue first accrues; a subsequent cause of action cannot be relied upon to overcome limitation once the right to sue has first accrued.

Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, a plaint may be rejected where, from its statements, the suit appears barred by law.

An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be filed at any stage of the proceedings.

The revision was brought under Section 115 CPC.

The High Court concluded that the plaint itself showed the plaintiff knew of the defendant’s denial of title in 2007. The three-year limitation period therefore began then, whereas the present suit was filed in 2024; on the Court’s view, it was time-barred on the face of the plaint.

The Court rejected the trial court’s approach of leaving the issue for trial and held that the earlier High Court order granting liberty to file a separate suit “in accordance with law” did not direct that the suit be entertained irrespective of limitation.

The application was maintainable despite having been filed at a later stage.

It accordingly allowed the civil revision petition and closed all pending interlocutory applications.