INTRODUCTION
In Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3560–3561 of 2023, decided on 15 October 2025, a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra of the Supreme Court of India delivered an important ruling on the principles governing rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The decision, reaffirmed that a plaint cannot be summarily rejected unless it is ex facie barred by law. The Court restored the Trial Court’s Order refusing to reject the plaint and clarified the approach that must guide courts when dealing with applications alleging limitation or procedural bars at the threshold.
BRIEF FACTS
The Appellant, Karam Singh, along with a co-plaintiff, had instituted a civil suit in 2019 against Amarjit Singh and others, seeking:
1)A declaration of ownership to the extent of their share in certain agricultural land;
2)Possession of the suit land;
3)Damages and mesne profits for wrongful occupation; and
4)A permanent injunction restraining interference with possession.
The Plaintiffs claimed title as legal heirs of Ronak Singh, who had died intestate in 1924, leaving behind his widow, Kartar Kaur. A long chain of litigations ensued over decades involving a disputed gift deed executed by Kartar Kaur, later set aside in 1975. After her death in 1983, the Defendants propounded a will dated 15 December 1976 in their favour and sought mutation. However, mutation was initially sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiffs’ predecessors, and subsequent proceedings on the issue continued until 20 July 2017. The Plaintiffs then filed the present suit in 2019, alleging the will was forged and void.
The Defendants filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, contending that the Suit was hopelessly barred by limitation and hit by Order II Rule 2, as an earlier suit (No. 648/2012) on the same cause of action had been dismissed. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in revision, allowed the plea and rejected the plaint, holding that the suit, filed nearly 36 years after Kartar Kaur’s death, was time-barred. The recall application filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Supreme Court examined the following legal questions:
1)Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation, based solely on the plaint averments?
2)Whether the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, given the previous litigation?
3)What are the guiding principles for courts while exercising power under Order VII Rule 11?
ANALYSIS
Justice Manoj Misra, writing for the Bench, undertook a detailed analysis of the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, emphasizing that the test for rejection of a plaint is confined strictly to the statements contained in the plaint itself and not on the defence raised by the opposite party. A plaint can be rejected at the threshold only when, from a plain reading, it appears ex facie barred by law.
The Court noted that the Plaintiffs’ case was not merely for declaration but also for possession based on title, which carried a 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, computed from the date of adverse possession, if any. Since the mutation proceedings concluded only in 2017 and the suit was filed in 2019, it could not be deemed barred by limitation. The High Court, by focusing on the age of the will (36 years), had erred in ignoring that the plaintiffs were continuously contesting the mutation proceedings until 2017.
On Limitation and Possession
The Court cited Indira v. Arumugam [(1998) 1 SCC 614] to reaffirm that in suits for possession based on ownership, once title is established, the burden lies on the defendant to prove adverse possession. Consequently, the question of limitation becomes a matter of evidence rather than a pure question of law suitable for summary rejection.
On the Effect of Mutation Proceedings
It was reiterated, with reference to Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh [(1997) 7 SCC 137] and Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner [(2007) 6 SCC 186], that mutation entries do not confer title, serving merely fiscal purposes. Therefore, the culmination of mutation proceedings cannot by itself extinguish ownership rights or bar a civil suit.
On the Bar of Order II Rule 2
The Court clarified that since the earlier suit (No. 648/2012) had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11, the subsequent properly framed suit could not be deemed barred by Order II Rule 2. The earlier dismissal did not operate as res judicata, as no issue had been adjudicated on merits.
On the Principle of Judicial Prudence
The Court drew upon its earlier rulings such as N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037] and Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208] to emphasize that a plaint cannot be rejected merely because part of the relief may be time-barred; if any one of the prayers is within limitation, the plaint must proceed to trial.
The Bench underscored that questions of limitation, fraud, or adverse possession require evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold without giving parties the opportunity to lead proof.
CONCLUSION
Setting aside the Orders of the High Court, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decision rejecting the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The matter was remanded for trial on merits, with a clear direction that any observations in the Judgment were not to be construed as findings on the merits of the dispute.
Through this ruling, the Supreme Court reinforced a foundational procedural safeguard: a plaint should not be dismissed summarily unless the bar of law is patent and incontrovertible on the face of the pleadings. The Judgment serves as a reminder that procedural tools meant to prevent frivolous litigation should not themselves become instruments of premature justice denial.
KEY TAKEAWAY
The decision in Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors. reiterates that Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not a weapon to short-circuit trials, but a narrow gateway to weed out manifestly barred suits. When the dispute involves mixed questions of law and fact — especially in matters of limitation, adverse possession, or succession — the scales of justice must tilt toward trial, not truncation.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Assocaite
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled “Legal Aspects of Start-up Funding in India | Complete Guide 2025 | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma”