ULTRA-HARD RULE 11(d) PROBLEM SET (10 Marks Each)

Posted on February 28, 2026 by Admin

📘

🔴 Problem 1 – Limitation + Fraud + Clever Drafting

A executes a registered sale deed in favour of B on 10.01.2005.
In 2024, A files a suit for declaration that the sale deed is void alleging:

He never intended to sell.
He was “misled”.
He came to know about fraud in 2023 when revenue entry was mutated.
No specific fraud particulars are pleaded.

Defendant files application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC stating suit is barred under Article 59 Limitation Act.

Model Answer Structure:

Limitation under Article 59 = 3 years from date of knowledge.
Sale deed is registered document (constructive notice).
Vague fraud plea without particulars.
Meaningful reading shows delay of 19 years.
Bar apparent from plaint.

Result: Reject plaint.

Authorities:

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal

🔴 Problem 2 – Commercial Suit Without Mediation + Urgent Relief Pleaded Artificially

Plaintiff files commercial recovery suit of ₹2 crore in 2023.
He adds a paragraph seeking “urgent interim injunction” but relief clause only seeks money decree.
No Section 12A mediation done.

Defendant seeks rejection under O7R11(d).

Model Answer:

Sec 12A mandatory unless urgent interim relief genuinely sought.
Mere drafting of urgency insufficient.
Relief clause governs substance.
No urgent interim relief actually claimed.

Result: Rejection mandatory.

Authority:
Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited

🔴 Problem 3 – SARFAESI + Allegation of Fraud by Bank

Bank initiates SARFAESI action under Sec 13(4).
Borrower files civil suit alleging:

Bank miscalculated amount.
Auction notice illegal.
Fraud by bank officials.

Bank invokes Sec 34 SARFAESI and seeks rejection.

Model Answer:

Sec 34 bars civil jurisdiction.
DRT remedy available under Sec 17.
Fraud exception applies only where fraud is outside statute.
Here fraud relates to bank action under SARFAESI.

Result: Civil suit barred → reject.

Authority:
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India

🔴 Problem 4 – Arbitration Clause + Serious Fraud Allegation

Agreement contains arbitration clause.
Plaintiff files civil suit alleging:

Fraud in execution of contract.
Seeks cancellation and damages.

Defendant files Sec 8 application + O7R11(d).

Model Answer:

Examine arbitrability.
Fraud must be serious/complex to avoid arbitration.
Mere allegation insufficient.
Civil court must refer.

Result: Suit barred; refer to arbitration.

Authority:
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation

🔴 Problem 5 – IBC Moratorium + Third Party Rights

Corporate debtor under CIRP.
Plaintiff files civil suit claiming ownership of property in possession of corporate debtor.

RP files O7R11(d) citing Sec 63 IBC.

Model Answer:

Sec 63 bars civil court in matters NCLT empowered to determine.
If dispute relates to CIRP asset determination → NCLT domain.
Civil jurisdiction excluded.

Result: Reject plaint.

Authority:
Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

🔴 Problem 6 – Benami Defence Disguised as Trust

Plaintiff sues claiming property purchased in wife’s name but held “in trust” for him.

Defendant invokes Sec 4 Benami Act.

Model Answer:

Examine real substance.
If beneficial ownership claimed → barred.
Label of “trust” cannot defeat statutory bar.

Result: Reject.

Authority:
R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan

🔴 Problem 7 – Mixed Relief (Some Time-Barred, Some Not)

Suit seeks:

Cancellation of 2010 sale deed.
Permanent injunction based on possession since 2022.

Defendant seeks rejection on limitation.

Model Answer:

Cannot partially reject plaint.
If any part survives and cause of action disclosed → entire plaint survives.
Limitation mixed question if possession pleaded.

Result: Application dismissed.

Authority:
Church of Christ Charitable Trust v. Ponniamman Educational Trust

🔴 Problem 8 – Companies Act Bar (Oppression Dispute Filed as Civil Suit)

Minority shareholder files civil suit for declaration invalidating board resolution.

Defendant invokes Sec 430 Companies Act.

Model Answer:

Oppression/mismanagement within NCLT jurisdiction.
Sec 430 bars civil court.

Result: Reject plaint.

Authority:
Shashi Prakash Khemka v. NEPC Micon

🔴 Problem 9 – Revenue Entry Challenge

Plaintiff challenges mutation entry in civil court seeking declaration.

Defendant argues exclusive revenue remedy.

Model Answer:

Apply Dhulabhai test.
If statute provides adequate remedy + exclusion clause → bar.

Authority:
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh

🔴 Problem 10 – Limitation Not Clear from Plaint

Plaintiff pleads continuous cause of action.

Dates ambiguous; requires evidence.

Defendant presses O7R11(d).

Model Answer:

If limitation requires trial/evidence → cannot reject.
Only ex facie bar attracts 11(d).

Authority:
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali

🧠 Examiner Expectation (How to Score 10/10)

✔ Identify statutory bar clearly
✔ Quote exact section
✔ Apply plaint-only test
✔ Cite correct Supreme Court authority
✔ Conclude decisively (Reject / Not Reject)