In Brief
The appellant-defendants sought rejection of a plaint for specific performance of a 1992 Agreement to Sell, claiming the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff alleged he discovered the defendants' refusal to perform only on 25 May 2017, when he visited the property and found it sold to a third party. The trial court allowed the rejection, but the High Court set it aside. The Supreme Court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. At the plaint-rejection stage under Order VII Rule 11(d), only the averments in the plaint can be examined, not the merits. When the plaintiff alleges a specific date of notice of refusal, this is a triable issue requiring evidence and cannot be decided without trial. Mere delay or laches does not justify plaint rejection; the date of actual notice of refusal must be established at trial. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.