The Gujarat High Court has upheld a trial court order dismissing an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application seeking rejection of the plaint, observing that the application was filed at the "fag end of the trial" when the suit had reached the stage of final arguments. 

The court was hearing a revision plea challenging an order passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Valsad which dismissed the petititoner-defendant's application under  Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the respondent's plaint. 

Justice Maulik J Shelat in its order noted that the application was filed on 27.10.2025 at the stage of recording of defendant's evidence and now, the suit has reached to the stage of final arguments. 

Meanwhile the petitioner contended that the suit was "hopelessly" time barred as there was a clear admission forthcoming from the side of plaintiff in his cross-examination that he was aware about the dispute germane to the suit since 1984 but he only filed it in 2019. It was argued that the application can be filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at the any stage of the proceeding of the suit and if a case is made out by the applicant, the trial court was supposed to decide such application on merit rather than rejecting it on technical grounds.

The court however said:

"Prima facie, it appears that suit in question was instituted in the year 2019 and impugned application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, by petitioner-defendant no.8, on 27.10.2025 which came to be rejected by trial court vide its impugned order dated 14.07.2026. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the impugned application was filed after oral evidence of plaintiff had concluded and during the recording the defendant's evidence. It is also not in dispute that the suit has reached to the stage of final arguments. Today, it is a date of final arguments before the trial court.

Prima facie, the entire emphasis of the defendant no.8 to reject the plaint, is on the basis of the so-called admission forthcoming during the cross-examination of the plaintiff. The petitioner unfortunately could not understand the difference between scope and interference of the Court to reject the plaint at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and dismissal of the suit upon appreciation of evidence. One cannot dispute that plaint, which can only be rejected by a bare reading of the plaint only. The defence and documents of the defendant cannot be looked into by Court while adjudicating the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. According to the defendant no.8, certain admissions have been made by plaintiff during his cross-examination and the documents which are filed by the defendant might also have been admitted by plaintiff. At the same time, such admission and evidence cannot be looked into by the Court while examining an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC".

The court said that the stage at which the petitioner filed the  Order 7 Rule 11 plea is also required to be taken into account. The court said that it had observed filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 at any stage of the proceedings is "nowadays misused by defendant and for any reason" wherein such application being filed either to delay the adjudication of the suit or not to lead evidence to prove his case.

"Merely because the defendant has right to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at any stage of proceeding would not mean that the defendant can be permitted to file such application at the fag end of trial...Accordingly to my view, such type of application filed at such a belated stage of trial of the suit requires to be rejected with the costs, otherwise for any reason, defendant may engage the trial court in adjudication of such application, thereby he would not allow the trial court to adjudicate the lis on merits" it added.

The court further said that the trial court order did not suggest that it had accepted the submissions of the petitioner that suit is time barred; rather while assigning reasons, the submission of petitioner was recorded that as per oral evidence of the plaintiff (cross-examination), the suit is time barred. 

The court said that the trial court had correctly observed that issue of limitation is already framed and it requires to be decided along with the other issues.

The court thus dismissed the plea along with Rs. 10,000 costs. 

Case title: NIRAV MADHUKAR BUCH v/s  LILABEN BHIKHUBHAI THAKOR & ORS.

R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 441 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order