Gujarat High Court
Dahiben D/O Nathji Jagaji Since Decd. ... vs Manguben Wd/O Ambalal Motiram on 6 May, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1353 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1353 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN s.d/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI s.d/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
================================================================
DAHIBEN D/O NATHJI JAGAJI SINCE DECD. THROUGH HER LHS & ORS.
Versus
MANGUBEN WD/O AMBALAL MOTIRAM & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NATVAR D BHARWAD(5744) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.1.1,1.1.2,1.1.3,1.1.4,1.1.4.1,1.1.4.2,1.1.4.3,1.1.4.4,1.1.5,1.2,1.2.1,1.2.
2,1.2.3
MR. D. P. KINARIWALA(410) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.1.1,1.1.2,1.1.3,1.1.4,1.1.4.1,1.1.4.2,1.1.4.3,1.1.4.4,1.1.5,1.2,1.2.1,1.2.
2,1.2.3
MS TRUSHA PATEL, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MS KOMAL DESAI FOR
MR BHAVESH BABARIYA(6788) for the Defendant(s) No. 19
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 06/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate below application Exh.48 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") whereby Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined the Special Civil Suit no. 49 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit") has been rejected. The suit was filed, inter alia, challenging the sale deeds dated 29.08.1996, 16.07.2005, 26.09.2007 and 17.05.2015 executed in favour of the defendants with respect to revenue survey no. 469 situated at Moje Makarba, District Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question"). Additionally, the plaintiffs have prayed for declaration that they be declared as the owners of the land in question. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the suit .
2. Application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), was filed by the defendant no.19 raising the grounds namely absence of cause of action; suit being barred by limitation and provisions of section 85 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1948"). Application came to be allowed by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved, the captioned appeal.
3. Mr D.P. Kinariwala, learned Advocate with Mr Natvar Bharwad, learned Advocate submitted that the plaintiffs, have challenged the sale deeds and the latter part of the relief in the suit was seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the land in question. It is submitted that when there was a declaration sought as regards the ownership of the land in question coupled with the permanent injunction, the trial Court, ought to have considered the limitation as provided under Article 58 of the Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined Limitation Act,1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1963") and having not considered the provisions in the right earnest, the learned Judge has committed grave error in dismissing the suit on the ground of it being barred by limitation. It is submitted that considering the prayers and more particularly, the latter part, it could not have been said that the suit is barred by limitation.
3.1 It is further submitted that the issue was raised regarding bar of section 85 of the Act of 1948 but, that was only an incidental issue and not the main issue. It is no doubt true, that if the issues are raised pertaining to the Act of 1948, it has to be referred to the tribunal and till then, the Court is supposed to postpone the hearing and only after there is decision of the competent authority, the suit can be proceeded. It is submitted that if, there is a prayer prayed for in the plaint and the cause of action discloses the fact and it is to be settled or decided by the authorities under the Act of 1948, only thereafter the provisions of section 85 would come into picture. It is submitted that in the case on hand, there is no challenge to any of the orders passed by the authorities and hence, no question arises of applying section 85 of the Act of 1948 for allowing Order VII Rule 11 application.
3.2 It is further submitted that no issues were framed for referring the matter and in absence thereof, the application could not have been decided. It is also submitted that the averments and the pleadings in the plaint ought to have been considered by the Court below; however, it has not been Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined considered. It is submitted that in paragraph 13 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have clearly stated the cause of action. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were in possession of the land in question. It was only two months back that the possession was interrupted and as a result, the plaintiffs tried to procure the revenue records and it revealed that the defendants have surreptitiously and keeping the plaintiffs in dark, got their names posted in the revenue record and more particularly, the defendant nos. 1 to 7. It is submitted that when cause of action was specifically stated, there was no reason available to the learned Judge to have accepted the application and rejected the suit. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has taken note of the past events. It is further opined that the issue as regards the status of tenant was illegally conferred and entering of name as tenant in the revenue record, cannot be gone into. Section 85 of the Act of 1948 was also one of the reasons which weighed with the Court and it held that it has no jurisdiction to determine the issue.
3.3 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Patel Gordhanbhai Vaghjibhai vs. Vaghji Ranchhodbhai Samtabhai reported in (1966) GLR 311. It is submitted that the issue came up before the Full Bench owing to the conflict between two decisions of the Court. The Full Bench, while dealing with the provisions of section 85 of the Act of 1948, has held and observed that the civil suits pending should not be dismissed and issues triable by Mamlatdar shall be sent to the revenue court. It is therefore urged that the learned Judge was wrong in accepting the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined rejecting the plaint.
4. On the other hand, Ms.Trusha Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms.Komal Desai, learned Advocate appearing for defendant no.19, submitted that the theory propounded by the plaintiffs is misconceived, considering the fact that somewhere in the year 1963, predecessor of plaintiffs had executed a sale deed and since it was against the provisions of the Act of 1948, the Mamlatdar initiated the proceedings under section 84C which culminated into passing of the order dated 15.10.1976/01.11.1976 and the sale, came to be regularized in favour of one Dhulaji Lakhaji by imposing a penalty of Rs.1/-. Entry no. 5216 was posted in the village form no. 6 and was duly certified. After the sale was regularized, Dhulaji Lakhaji executed registered sale deed on 26.09.1977 in favour of Motiram Gobardas Prajapti and Ambaram Motiram Prajapati. Followed was registered banakhat on 20.12.1993 by the heirs of Ambaram Motiram Prajapati (defendant nos. 1 to 7) in favour of one Jayantilal Bhalabhai Patel and Ramabhai Bhulabhai Bharwad (defendant nos. 8 and 9). After the execution of the registered banakhat, registered sale deed came to be executed on 29.08.1996 by the heirs of Ambaram Motiram Prajapati in favour of Jayantilal Bhalabhai Patel and Ramabhai Bhulabhai Bharwad with respect to the land in question.
4.1 It is submitted that Ramabhai Bhulabhai Bharwad himself and one of his heirs Anilbhai Ramabhai Bharwad executed fourth sale deed in favour of Rohit Chinubhai Modi Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined (defendant no.10) on 16.07.2005 qua 1000 sq. mts.; subsequently on 26.09.2007, after giving notice in the newspaper, sale deed came to be executed by all the owners in favor of one Ashwamegh Samudayik Kheti Sahakari Mandali (defendant no.18). Pursuant to the notice published in the newspaper, no objections were received. It is only thereafter that the sale deed came to be executed on 12.05.2015 in favour of Naresh Chunilal Patel (defendant no.
19). Hence, the suit filed in the year 2016 is barred by limitation.
4.2 It is submitted that out of the six sale deeds, the challenge is only to the four subsequent sale deeds and not previous two; however, there is no explanation offered as to why the plaintiffs have not challenged the previous two sale deeds executed prior to the year 1977. Though the sale deed of the year 1977 is not subject matter of challenge, the parties in whose favour the sale deed was executed, they have been joined. It is submitted that in the plaint, the stand has been taken by the plaintiffs in connection with the sale deed which was executed in the year 1996. It is further submitted that the stand regarding the tenancy proceedings is clearly taken in the plaint. Further stand taken in the plaint is that despite the fact that the names of the plaintiffs are available on the record, the consent has not been obtained. Clear averment has been made in the plaint that the predecessor of the plaintiffs passed away in the year 1996, who has informed the plaintiffs about her taking care of the land in question; and that now the plaintiffs should take care. Therefore, in the year Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined 1996, the predecessor of the plaintiffs has clearly required the plaintiffs to take steps; but, the plaintiffs chose not to verify the revenue record with respect to the land in question. Now, the stand taken is that they have been cultivating and in possession of the land in question, which is distorted and misconceived.
4.3 It is further submitted that if at all, there was any cause available, it was during the lifetime of Dahiben Ramaji d/o Nathaji Jagaji who passed away on 15.05.1995. She during her lifetime, did not challenge the sale deeds executed previously. Moreover, not only Dahiben Ramaji but her sons also did not challenge the transactions executed in favour of the defendants. Interestingly, the suit is filed by the Power of Attorney challenging the sale deeds and that too in the year 2016 indicating that some unknown person has visited the land in question and required the plaintiffs to hand over the possession. It is submitted that the knowledge was very much there to the plaintiffs but they chose not to take any steps. Considering the transactions in succession and the fact that the plaintiffs did not take any steps, the application was filed raising grounds namely, no cause of action, the suit being barred by limitation so also barred by the provisions of section 85 of the Act of 1948. It is further submitted that the challenge to the sale deed being illegal is based on the orders which were passed during the tenancy proceedings having fraudulently obtained from the revenue authorities. Owing to the said stand taken by the plaintiffs, that section 85 of the Act of 1948 was pressed into service.
Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined 4.4 It is submitted that the learned Judge rightly accepted the application and rejected the suit, inasmuch as, the suit is principally for cancellation of the sale deed executed in the year 1996. When the issue got settled in the year 1963, followed by the order of the Mamlatdar in the year 1976, the present suit is nothing but only with a view to extracting money. It is therefore urged that no error has been committed by the learned Judge in exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and the appeal does deserve to be entertained at the admission stage itself.
5. Heard the learned Counsel and learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. The Court has considered the plaint, the application of the defendant no. 19 so also the paper-book containing the documents produced together with the plaint, on the record.
6. The brief facts leading to the filing of the captioned appeal in relation to the land in question, are worth referring to. The plaintiffs claim to be the heirs of Dahiben Ramaji d/o Nathaji Jagaji. The suit has been filed challenging (i) registered sale deed dated 29.08.1996 executed by the heirs of Ambaram Motiram Prajapati in favour of Jayantilal Bhalabhai Patel and Ramabhai Bhulabhai Bharwad (defendant nos.8 and 9); (ii) another sale deed dated 16.07.2005 was executed by Ramabhai Bhulabhai Bharwad himself and one of his heirs Anilbhai Ramabhai Bharwad in favour of Rohit Chinubhai Modi (defendant no.10); (iii) sale deed dated 26.09.2007 was executed by all the owners in favor of one Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined Ashwamegh Samudayik Kheti Sahakari Mandali (defendant no.18) and (iv) sale deed dated 12.05.2015 in favour of Naresh Chunilal Patel (defendant no. 19). Moreover, the plaintiffs have also prayed for declaration and to declare that the land in question is of their ownership. With these prayers, that the plaintiffs have filed the suit.
7. During the pendency of the suit, application came to be filed by the defendant no. 19 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code seeking rejection of the plaint raising the grounds, namely; (i) that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action, (ii) that the suit is barred by limitation and (iii) that the suit is barred by the provisions of section 85 of the Act, of 1948. The plaintiffs have filed the reply to the application under Order VII Rule 11 objecting the application on the ground that the cause of action has been mentioned in the plaint inasmuch as, two months prior to the filing of the suit, some unidentified persons had come and threatened the plaintiffs to vacate the land in question claiming ownership. Owing to the said incident, the plaintiffs visited the revenue office and gathered information and they came to know that the defendants behind their back, got the land in question transferred in their names. Stand is also taken that whether the person is a tenant of agricultural land or not, is to be decided and bar cannot be inferred under the provisions of section 85 of the Act of 1948. It is the stand taken that considering the pleadings in the plaint, it prima facie establishes that there is no question of any tenancy rights and therefore, the issue of bar would not arise it being mixed Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined question of law and facts and for which, full fledged trial is required. Further stand is taken that in view of threats received about vacating the land in question, that prayer of permanent injunction and protection of the possession has been sought for. The issues, whether the plaintiffs are in possession or not and whether the defendant no. 19 is trying to interfere with the possession, would be the question of fact to be determined at the stage of trial. It being the question of law and facts, the application Order VII Rule 11 could not have been dismissed. Accepting the application, under Order VII Rule 11 by the defendant no. 19, the learned Judge rejected the plaint.
8. Adverting to the impugned judgment, it may be noted that documents produced by the plaintiffs together with the plaint were duly considered by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has discussed in detail the factum of transfer in favour of Dhulaji Lakhaji by way of unregistered sale deed and the transaction being regularized by the order of the Mamlatdar upon payment of penalty of Rs.1/-. The factum of the entry of the transaction by Dahiben has also been taken note of. The above referred facts have been thoroughly discussed by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment, specifically, the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, the entries in the revenue record and the successive transactions. Having considered these aspects in detail, the learned Judge concluded that a reading of the order dated 15.10.1976 by the Mamlatdar, clearly establishes that the sale had been regularized in favour of the tenant upon making the payment of Rs.1/-. It is Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined observed that the plaintiffs have raised the contention that Dhulaji Lakhaji was illegally declared as a tenant under the provisions of the Act of 1948. However, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the said issue falls within the purview of the revenue court and, the civil court lacks jurisdiction. The learned Judge has further observed that there exists a bar of section 85 of the Act of 1948 seeking declaration disputing the status of the tenant as per the provisions of the Act of 1948.
9. The learned Judge after considering the abovereferred facts was of the opinion that the plaintiffs could have instituted the suit within a period of three years; however, the suit has been filed almost after an inordinate delay of approximately forty years. Thus, the reliefs sought for in the plaint are nothing but clever drafting aimed merely to cover up the limitation period. The learned Judge, therefore, concluded that no evidence would be necessary for deciding the issue and held that the suit is barred by limitation. Based on these findings, the learned Judge accepted the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and accordingly rejected the plaint.
10. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Judge, did not commit any error in rejecting the plaint, considering the factual matrix arising from the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced thereto. It may be observed that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, only the averments made in the plaint and the Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined documents annexed thereto are required to be seen. The principle in this behalf, is well settled. Keeping the said principle in forefront, this Court has examined the impugned judgment. Considering the record, it reveals that the unregistered sale deed was executed by Dahiben D/o Nathaji Jagaji in favour of Dhulaji Lakhaji, without there being any permission as contained in the provisions of Act of 1948 which, led to the proceedings under section 84C and culminated into passing of the order dated 15.10.1976. The sale in favour of Dhulaji Lakhaji was regularized. Subsequent thereto, entry no. 5216 dated 02.12.1976 was posted in the village form no. 6 making a reference of the order dated 15.10.1976/01.11.1976 passed by the Mamlatdar. Reference is made of unregistered sale deed executed by Dahiben D/o Nathaji Jagaji in favour of Dhulaji Lakhaji with a further reference of proceedings for breach under section 84 of the Act of 1948 and passing of the order by the Mamlatdar. Reference is made of Dahiben in connection with the transaction of sale. The entry no.5216 was certified on 11.02.1977 and has remained unchallenged. The documents namely, 7/12 forms of the years 1951-52 to 2006-07 have been placed on the record. Perceptibly, until the year 1977, the name of Dahiben also appears in the 7/12 forms together with the name of Dhulaji Lakhaji and by virtue of the subsequent transaction and the proceedings so also the order of the Mamlatdar passed under the Act of 1948, the name of Dhulaji Lakhaji is reflected in the 7/12 forms exclusively, till the year 1978-79.
Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
11. The record further reveals that Dhulaji Lakhaji executed a registered sale deed on 26.09.1977 in favour of Motiram Gobardas Prajapati and Ambaram Motiram Prajapati. Consequently, entry no. 5316 dated 15.06.1978 was posted in the village form no. 6 which fact, is strengthened by the village form no. 7/12 placed on record for the years 1980 reflecting the name of Ambaram Motiram Prajapati and it continued to be reflected in the revenue record for the subsequent years. Thereafter a registered banakhat came to be executed on 20.12.1993 by the heirs of Ambaram Motiram Prajapati (defendant nos. 1 to 7) in favour of Jayantilal Bhalabhai Patel and Ramabhai Bhulabhai Bharwad (defendant nos. 8 and 9) which was followed by the registered sale deed on 29.08.1996. Accordingly, the names of defendant nos.8 and 9 were reflected in the 7/12 form till the years 2006-07. It is thereafter that on 16.07.2005, a fourth registered sale deed was executed by Ramabhai Bhalabhai Bharwad and one of his heirs in favour of one Rohit Chinubhai Modi (defendant no.10). It is pertinent to clarify that this registered sale deed was with respect to 1000 sq. mts. of the land in question. On 26.09.2007, after following due procedure and giving notice in the newspaper, the registered sale deed came to be executed by all the owners (defendant nos. 8 to 17) in favor of one Ashwamegh Samudayik Kheti Sahakari Mandali (defendant no.18). The said entity, in turn, executed a registered sale deed dated 12.05.2015 in favour of Naresh Chunilal Patel (defendant no. 19). Therefore, since the year 1976 the land in question, came to be initially transferred in favour of Dhulaji Lakhaji and thereafter, several transactions, in succession, Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined have taken place in favour of the respective defendants.
12. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs only in the year 2016 citing as a cause of action that two months prior to filing of the suit, certain unidentified persons claiming to be the owners, had threatened the plaintiffs to vacate the land in question. It is the case of the plaintiffs themselves that in the year 1996, they have been informed by their predecessor to take care of the land in question and were put in possession. Despite having full knowledge about the land in question, it is surprising that the plaintiffs did not take any steps to assert their rights, let alone challenge the status of the land in question in the revenue record. Pertinently, the names of the defendants had already been mutated in the revenue record owing to the various sale transactions that took place since the year 1977.
13. Notably, Dahiben passed away in May, 1995. Therefore, if any grievance did exists, Dahiben could have challenged the order of the Mamlatdar or taken appropriate steps challenging the sale deeds executed by Dhulaji Lakhaji in favor of the predecessor of the defendant nos.1 to 6, or later in the year 1993, when the registered banakhat was executed by the defendant nos. 1 to 7 in favour of Jayantilal Bhalabhai Patel and Ramabhai Bhulabhai Bharwad (defendant nos. 8 and
9). However, she chose not to take any steps. Even her sons did not take any steps during their lifetime. Moreover, the plaintiffs themselves have contended that Dahiben, in the year 1996, had provided them with relevant information regarding Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined the land in question and had instructed them to take care of the same. Therefore, even at that stage the plaintiffs were fully aware about the land in question; however, they still chose not to take any steps, except claiming to be in possession. The theory propounded by the plaintiffs thus fails to inspire any confidence.
14. It is noteworthy, that subsequently registered sale deeds have been executed in succession and the necessary entries have been posted in the revenue record. Moreover, the 7/12 forms extract produced by the plaintiffs clearly indicate the names of the subsequent purchasers i.e. defendant nos. 1 to 7 initially, followed by defendant nos. 8 and 9, then defendant no. 10 and lastly, defendant nos. 18 and 19, coupled with the entries in the village form no.6. In none of the records produced, is there any semblance of a right reflected of the plaintiffs. The predecessor of the plaintiffs lost her right in the year 1976, following the order passed by the Mamlatdar. Accordingly, the suit filed in the year 2016, is clearly barred by limitation. Even otherwise, in the absence of any right or interest in the land in question, there exist no cause of action that would entitle the plaintiffs to seek any declaratory relief or to challenge the validity of the sale deeds.
15. The cause of action pleaded is nothing but an illusionary cause of action which ex-facie is barred by law. The averments made in the plaint is nothing but a result of clever an skillful drafting only with a view to covering up the period of limitation. Thus considering the requirement of law and Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1353/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined applying the same to the facts of the present case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Judge rejecting the plaint, inter alia, on the ground of it being barred by law. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal does not merit interference and is liable to be rejected at the admission stage itself.
16. In view of the dismissal of First Appeal, the connected civil application shall not survive and is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
s.d/-
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) s.d/-
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) SINDHU NAIR Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:06:04 IST 2025