ULTRA-TECHNICAL LIMITATION REJECTION (ARTICLE-SPECIFIC)

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.), [PLACE]
Regular Civil Suit No. __ of 20__

ORDER BELOW EXH. __

1. The defendant has moved this application contending that the suit is barred by limitation.

2. As per paragraph __ of the plaint, the agreement to sell was executed on 01.01.2015 and the alleged refusal occurred on 01.03.2016. The present suit for specific performance is filed on 10.05.2022.

3. The suit is governed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes a period of three years from:

   • The date fixed for performance; or

   • When refusal is noticed.

4. The plaint itself discloses that refusal was communicated on 01.03.2016. The limitation therefore expired on 28.02.2019.

5. No averment regarding acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act or any exclusion under Sections 4 to 24 is pleaded.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
   Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
   has held that where limitation is apparent from plaint averments, rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) is justified.

7. Since the suit is ex facie barred under Article 54, the bar is apparent from the plaint itself.

ORDER

The application Exh. __ is allowed.
The plaint stands rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Order to be drawn accordingly.

⚖ Judicial Technique Used in All Three Drafts

• Identify statutory provision.

• Extract relevant plaint averments.

• Apply specific Article/Section.

• Cite binding Supreme Court authority.

• Record finding: “bar apparent from plaint.”

• Operative order separately stated.