Limitation involving disputed knowledge is a mixed question of fact and law, not grounds for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Malkhan Singh instituted a civil suit in 1976. After his death, his legal representatives were substituted, and the suit was partly decreed ex parte on 24 June 1988 against Shivratan and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The decree declared the plaintiffs’ title and granted permanent injunction against interference with their possession.

In April 2024, the State and Shivratan filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, registered as MJC No. 561/2024. The petitioners sought rejection of the MJC under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, contending that it was filed approximately 36 years after the decree and was therefore barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed that application on 10 March 2026, holding that the limitation objection involved a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence.

The petitioners challenged that order under Section 115 CPC.

1. Whether the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as being ex facie barred by limitation.

2. Whether the question of when the State and Shivratan acquired knowledge of the ex parte judgment and decree was a mixed question of law and fact requiring determination after evidence.

The Court applied Section 115 CPC governing revisional jurisdiction, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC concerning rejection of a plaint, and Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC concerning setting aside an ex parte judgment and decree.

The Court reiterated the principle that where limitation depends upon disputed facts—particularly the date on which the applicant acquired knowledge of the decree—the issue constitutes a mixed question of law and fact and cannot ordinarily be decided at the preliminary stage for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; it must be determined after parties have led oral and documentary evidence.

Although the ex parte decree was passed on 24 June 1988 and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed in 2024, the State asserted that it had no knowledge of the decree until it came to know of it through an order passed in M.P. No. 4482/2023.

The petitioners disputed this and contended that the respondents had knowledge from the beginning. Since the applicability of limitation depended on resolving this factual dispute regarding the date of knowledge, the Court held that the issue could not be conclusively determined under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without evidence. Accordingly, the trial Court had correctly dismissed the petitioners’ application.

It clarified that the petitioners may raise the limitation objection at the appropriate stage of the trial and demonstrate that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC is time-barred. The trial Court was directed to decide that issue after appreciating the evidence and in accordance with law.

The civil revision was consequently disposed of.