Bombay High Court
SANJAY SOPAN ALHATversusSAMEER SHRIMANT ALHAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation and must proceed to trial if any prayer survives.
Summary
The applicant filed a civil revision challenging a Civil Judge’s order that rejected his application to dismiss the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The applicant argued that the suit was barred by limitation because it sought declarations concerning instruments dated 1983, 2006 and 2008, and that the primary prayer for partition of joint family property was not time‑barred. The court held that the limitation issue could be decided at trial and that a plaint cannot be partially rejected; if any prayer survives, the suit must proceed. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court found no legal infirmity in the lower court’s order. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the suit is barred by limitation on the ground of the age of the instruments.
- Whether an application for rejection of a plaint can be dismissed on the basis of limitation.
- Whether a plaint can be partially rejected when some prayers are time‑barred.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
Subjects
- limitation
- partition suit
- declaration
- Order VII Rule 11
- Civil Procedure
- rejection of plaint
- joint family property
Judgment
12-CRA334-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 334 OF 2026
Sanjay Sopan Alhat ...Applicant
Versus
Sameer Shrimant Alhat …Respondent
Mr. Ganu Keluskar, a/w Pranjal Shewale and Pallavi Bhatt, for
SANTOSH the Applicant.
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.08.19
DATED: 18th AUGUST, 2026
18:05:21 +0530
Oral Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant.
2. The challenge in this application is to an order dated 10 th
March, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby an
application for rejection of the plaint preferred by the Applicant
– Defendant No.13 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be rejected.
3. The thrust of the submission of Mr. Keluskar was that
from the perusal of the averments in the plaint, it becomes
evident that, the suit would be barred by law of limitation. It
was further submitted that the Plaintiff is seeking declarations
in respect of instruments executed in the year 1983, 2006 and
2008. The learned Civil Judge was just not justified in rejecting
1/2
12-CRA334-2026.DOC
the application for rejection of the plaint on the premise that the
question of limitation warranted adjudication at the trial. It is
imperative to note that the primary prayer in the plaint is that
of partition and separate possession of the suit properties,
which are alleged to be the joint family properties. The plaintiff
asserts there has not been a partition by metes and bounds.
The relief of partition, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, cannot be said to be ex facie barred by law of limitation.
4. Even if the prayer of declaration in respect of one of the
instruments may be urged to be barred by law of limitation, that
would not be a ground for rejection of the plaint. It is trite that
the plaint cannot be rejected in part. If the suit survives even in
respect of one prayer or property, the suit must go for trial. A
useful reference in this context can be made to the decision of
the Supreme Court in the cases of Sejal Glass Limited vs
Navilan Merchants Private Limited1 and Madhav Prasad
Aggarwal and another vs. Axis Bank Limited and another 2
5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
legal infirmity in the impugned order.
6. The application stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
1 (2018) 11 SCC 780.
2 (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 158.
2/2
Checking your session…