Ranchi, October 17 - The Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition filed by Dr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary seeking to quash a lower court's order that refused to reject a suit challenging a 2014 property sale deed. The court clarified that the issue of limitation - whether the case was filed too late - could not be examined at this preliminary stage.
Background
The dispute stems from a registered sale deed dated June 28, 2014, which the plaintiff, Narayan Gope, alleged was obtained through fraud, coercion, and misrepresentation. Nearly seven years later, in March 2021, Gope approached the civil court, seeking a declaration that the deed was void from the beginning.
Dr. Tiwary, the purchaser of the property and the defendant in the case, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), requesting that the plaint (the initial complaint) be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation - meaning, filed too late under Indian law.
The trial court, however, rejected his application on March 20, 2025. Aggrieved, Tiwary filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the High Court’s intervention.
Court's Observations
Justice Choudhary’s order carefully explained why the petition could not stand. "The defence of limitation cannot be looked into at the stage of hearing the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC," the bench observed.
He cited earlier Supreme Court precedents - including Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa (2008) 12 SCC 661 - to highlight that while Order VII Rule 11 allows courts to reject a plaint under specific conditions, such rejection must arise only from what is written in the plaint itself, not from any defence or evidence provided by the opposite party.
In plain terms, the judge noted that limitation - whether a suit is filed within the legally allowed time - often involves a mixed question of law and fact. Such questions require examining not just the written complaint but also evidence and circumstances, which can only be done during a full-fledged trial.
"The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage," the order explained.
Decision
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed Dr. Tiwary's petition, upholding the lower court's refusal to reject the plaint. However, Justice Choudhary made an important observation - the trial court must decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue before proceeding further with the trial.
This means that although the plaint cannot be thrown out immediately, the question of whether the plaintiff filed the case too late will still be considered early in the trial.
"The learned Trial Court shall decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue before proceeding with the full-fledged trial in the present case," the judge directed, concluding the matter.
With that, the High Court disposed of the civil miscellaneous petition, bringing this particular stage of litigation to an end.
Case Title: Dr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary vs. Narayan Gope & Others
Case Type & Number: Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.) No. 562 of 2025
Order Date: 17 October 2025
