Manoj Laljibhai Baldha vs Vikasbhai Ramjibhai Sorathiya

Gujarat High Court

Manoj Laljibhai Baldha vs Vikasbhai Ramjibhai Sorathiya on 10 November, 2025

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CRA/76/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 76 of 2024
                      ==========================================================
                                                   MANOJ LALJIBHAI BALDHA
                                                           Versus
                                               VIKASBHAI RAMJIBHAI SORATHIYA
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Petitioners
                      MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Respondent
                      ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                           Date : 10/11/2025

                                                            ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short "the Code"), the petitioner defendant challenges order dated 6.2.2024 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Lodhika below Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2023 rejecting the application of the petitioner defendant filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(d) of the Code on the ground that suit is barred by law of limitation.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 The respondent herein (orig. plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2023 in the Court of Learned Principal Civil Judge, Lodhika on 18.1.2023 against the petitioner. The said suit was registered on 19.1.2023 inter alia praying for declaration that the sale-deed registered on 9.9.2016 vide registration no.2954 in respect of land bearing Old Survey no.504 Paiki 1 Paiki 1 (New Survey No.1144) of Mouje Chibhada, Taluka Lodhika, District Rajkot admeasuring 0 hector 86 are and 00 sq.mtrs. (in short "suit property") being Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined executed without consideration towards security is null and void and ab-initio void as per the provisions of The Transfer of Property Act and to set aside the said sale-deed.

2.2 That on summons being issued by the trial court, the petitioner (orig. defendant) appeared in the suit.

2.3 The petitioner made application under Order-7, Rule-

11(a)(d) of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint on 13.6.2023. The said application was registered at Ex. 15.

2.4 The respondent (orig. plaintiff) filed written objections against the application filed by petitioner (orig. defendant) under Order-7, Rule-11 of C.P.C. The said objections were registered at Ex.20.

2.5 The Learned Principal Civil Judge, Lodhika, after hearing parties vide his order dated 6.2.2024 was pleased to reject application Ex.15 filed by petitioner in Regular Civil Suit No.3/2023.

2.6 Hence, present petition.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Rao appearing for the defendant would submit that though the cause of action is a bundle of facts and is required to be examined and tried during the trial, reading of the plaint ex facie showcase that illusory and sam cause of action is pleaded under clever drafting. He would further submit that the suit is expressly barred by principles Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined of law of limitations. He would further submit that if the averments of the plaint is read as it is, the plaintiff filed a suit to cancel registered sale deed No.2954 executed in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff himself on 9.9.2016. He would further submit that taking the averments as well as pleadings of the plaint as it is, nowhere it is submitted by the plaintiff that sale deed is executed under the fraud or playing the fraud upon the plaintiff and therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court ought to have believed that the suit is filed beyond limitation and as such, plaint is liable to be rejected, however, ignoring such legal position, the learned trial court has committed serious error in declining to grant the relief in favour of the defendant. He would further submit that, though the plaintiff pleaded that the sale deed was executed as a security and without taking any consideration, such averments made in the plant are antithetical to the registered sale deed executed between the parties and produced on record, along with the list of documents at Mark 4/3. He referred to para 3 and 5 of the registered sale deed and submitted covenant made therein refers and establishes that the sale consideration was passed. He would further submit that the plaintiff has also acknowledged passing of the sale consideration and handing over of the possession of the suit property to the defendant, which indicates that it is a complete sale transaction took place on 9.9.2016. He would further submit that the suit to cancel such sale deed filed on 19.1.2023 indicates that the suit is filed after a period of three years and therefore the suit is expressly time barred.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined 4.1 To buttress his submission. learned advocate Mr. Rao referred to the judgment of this court in case of Agam Green Vile Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Versus Mehulkumar Balubhai Patel & Ors. , 2024 JX (Guj) 1058.

4.2 Upon such submissions, learned advocate Mr. Rao prays to allow this petition and to reject the plaint.

5. Hotly contesting the present revision, learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff and the defendant are brothers-in-law (Sala Banevi). Apparently, the sale deed was executed as a security. He would further submit that there are ample evidence on file along with various litigation to correlate with the pleadings and grounds made in the plaint to show that the sale deed was executed as a security. He would further submit that cause of action pleaded in para 10 of the plaint indicates that the defendant, since was trying to sell the suit property, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. Thus, it is submitted that taking up the averments made in the plaint as it is, issue of limitation became mixed questions of law and could be examined during trial after leading evidence by both the parties. He would further submit that intention of the party for executing the sale deed would be gathered during the trial, once the plaintiff and defendant are put to cross examination, and therefore, at this juncture, it cannot be said that this suit is barred by law of limitation, more particularly under Article 59 of the limitation Act.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mehta thus, submitted that the Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined learned trial Court has rightly rejected application under O 7 R 11 of the Code.

5.2 Upon such submission, learned advocate for the plaintiff requests to dismiss this petition.

6. I have heard learned advocates for both the parties and applied mind to the material produced in this petition.

7. At this juncture, I may refer to the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint para as under:-

"(1) Kindly declare that Registered Sale Deed No.2954 dated 09/09/2016 executed in favour of the defendant in respect of the old tenure agricultural well-irrigated land admeasuring Hector-0, Are-86, Sq.Mts.-00 situated at R.S. No.504 paiki 1 paiki 1 (Which is known as 'Punawalu' - having New R.S. No.1144) of Village:

Chibhada of Taluka: Lodhika of District: Rajkot under the ownership and possession of the plaintiff herein, is null & void and void-ab-initio as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act as the same has been executed towards security without consideration.

(2) Holding the Registered Sale Deed No.2954 dated 09/09/2016 executed in favour of the defendant as void, kindly direct the Sub-Registrar to cancel the said document in his day-book according to Section-31(2) of the Specific Relief Act.

(3) Kindly grant permanent injunction that the defendant herein himself, through his servants, agents, attorneys, any other person, through relatives or any third party, shall not transfer, assign, sell, lien, mortgage or encumber, create interest of any third party, or transfer to any person by way of lease, sub-lease or in any manner, the said impugned suit property being old tenure agricultural well-irrigated land admeasuring Hector-0, Are-86, Sq.Mts.-00 situated at R.S. No.504 Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined paiki 1 paiki 1 (Which is known as 'Punawalu' - having New R.S. No.1144) of Village: Chibhada of Taluka:

Lodhika of District: Rajkot on the basis of Registered Sale Deed No.2954 dated 09/09/2016, which has been executed against a security without consideration.

7.1 The cause of action pleaded in para 10 of the plaint reads as under:-

"(10) Cause of the action: The document of property in question in the suit has been executed in favour of the defendants as a security without obtaining any consideration and the said document has been executed between the parties with intention to create trust among them and the defendant is attempting to transfer, assign or sell the said property taking disadvantage of the said document and therefore, the present suit is required to be brought in order to prevent the defendants from committing such unlawful act."

8. In background of the aforesaid cause of action as well as relief claimed by the plaintiff, if we see and peruse the averments made by the plaintiff in Para 1 to 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff averred how he acquired the title of the suit property; in para 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff came out with the pleading that sale deed No.2954 dated 9.92016 was executed in favour of the defendant and produced at Mark 4/3. However, it is claimed that it was executed without sale consideration, and therefore it is hit by section 54 of the Transfer of Properties Act, in para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff came out with the pleading that the defendant of the suit, in the year 2015-16, since the plaintiff was in need of money, has granted loan in name of wife of the plaintiff through RTGS and thus, the sale deed was executed towards the security.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Ultimately, the plaintiff came out with the case that since the sale deed in question was executed towards the security without sale consideration, it be cancelled.

9. The defendant filed application at Exh.15 under O 7 R 11 of the Code and claimed that the suit is hit by principle of law of limitation as Article 59 state that relief to cancel or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him is three years. The application tendered by the defendant to reject the plaint has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that the question of law of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and needs to be decided after trial.

10. At this juncture, let refer Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which reads as under:

"11. Rejection of plaint. -

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a)where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b)where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c)where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp- paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d)where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law :

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined

(e)[where it is not filed in duplicate;] [Inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, Section 17 (w.e.f. 1.7.2002).]

(f)[ where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] [Substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, Section 8, for sub-

Clauses (f) and (g)(w.e.f. 1.7.2002) (as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, Section17 (w.e.f. 1.7.2002).] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp- paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper , as the cas e may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] [Added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 72 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977).]"

11. On plain reading of O.7 R.11, what appears that it lays down an independent remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, regardless of the right to contest the same on merits. It is a plea of demurrer. The law ostensibly does not contemplate at any stage when application under O.7 R.11 can be raised, and also does not say in express terms about the filing of a written Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined statement. Instead, the word 'shall' used in O.7 R.11, clearly imply thereby that it casts a duty on the court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of the contors provided therein, even without intervention of the defendant. The real object of Order 7 rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits. It applies to those cases where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law or there is no cause of action or if there is cause of action stated in the plaint, it is camouflage under the illusion. It is no more res integra that at the time of deciding application under O.7 R.11, the Court has to look at the averments made in the plaint only in their entirety to see that whether statement made in the plaint is barred by any provision of law or whether it discloses a real cause of action.

12. In the present case, the defendant raised contention that the suit is barred by law of limitation, more particularly, under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Article 59 of the Limitation Act reproduced hereunder:-

59 To cancel or set Three year When the facts aside an instrument entitling the or decree or for the plaintiff to have rescission of a the instrument contract. or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined rescinded first become known to him.

13. Two dates are more important to decide the petition. Firstly, undisputedly, registered sale deed is executed on 9.9.2016 qua the disputed property. The plaintiff was the seller and has put his signature on the sale deed and then, the sale deed was registered with the Sub Registrar office vide Sr No.2954 without any hindrance. The suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed was filed on 19.1.2023 by very same plaintiff. So, the suit is filed after almost 6 and 1/2 years of execution of the sale deed. However, the plaintiff came out with the case that it is the sale deed executed towards security and without sale consideration copy of the sale deed is produced at Mark 4/3. Para 3 thereof states that consideration of Rs.9,25,000/- was paid in cash to the plaintiff and he also acknowledged the same and issued receipt thereof and further, stated that he has no dispute whatsoever in regards to receipt of sale consideration of Rs.9,25,000/-. In para 5 of the sale deed, it is specifically held that since the plaintiff has received entire sale consideration of the suit property, he has handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the defendant. Accordingly, title and possession of the suit property was passed in favour of the defendant on execution of the sale deed on 9.9.2016.

By no means, the registered document, which is passed through the rigors of the Registration Act along with Transfer Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined of Property Act and Contract Act, reflects that the sale deed was executed towards the security. Apt to note that by way of clever drafting and putting camouflage upon the terms and conditions of the contract, the plaintiff hopelessly tried to bring the suit within the limitation. The plaintiff claimed relief to cancel sale deed after six years. The plaintiff is executant of the sale deed, he has knowledge of execution of sale deed. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he discovered execution of sale deed at subsequent point of time as fraud was played. Thus, it is established without any doubt that the suit is filed after six years to cancel the sale deed and therefore, it is hit by article 59 of the Limitation Act.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, in paragraph 5, has held thus:

"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsifs Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits."

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined

15. In Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) through Lrs. [AIR 2019 SC 1430], the Apex Court has held in paragraph 7 thus:-

"7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to the facts of the case in hand and the averments in the plaint, we are of the opinion that both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff himself along with his brother. The deed of gift was a registered gift deed. The execution of the gift deed is not disputed by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift and therefore the same is not binding on him. However, it is required to be noted that for approximately 22 years, neither the plaintiff nor his brother (who died on 15.12.2002) claimed at any point of time that the gift deed was showy deed of gift. One of the executants of the gift deed brother of the plaintiff during his lifetime never claimed that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift. It was the appellant herein-original defendant who filed the suit in the year 2001 for partition and the said suit was filed against his brothers to which the plaintiff was joined as defendant No. 10. It appears that the summon of the suit filed by the defendant being T.S. (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 was served upon the defendant No.10- plaintiff herein in the year 2001 itself. Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003. Even from the averments in the plaint, it appears that during these 22 years i.e. the period from 1981 till 2001/2003, the suit property was mortgaged by the appellant herein-original Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined defendant and the mortgage deed was executed by the defendant. Therefore, considering the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) and others, as stated above, and as the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC."

16. In view of above, at the cost of repetition, applying principles stated aforesaid, this Court finds that the plaintiff has designed the suit with messy pleadings having focal point to cancel the sale-deed dated 9.9.2016 execution of which was within the knowledge of the plaintiff since the date of the execution. The suit was admittedly filed on 19.1.2023. Thus, it is clearly hit by article 59 of the Limitation Act. It is to be stated that in the present case, to ascertain the issue of limitation, discussion of defence, if any, raised by the plaintiff is not required. The suit on its face is considered to be barred by limitation. The cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff was illusory and sam.

17. In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam (2005) 10 SCC 51 the Apex Court held thus:

"24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/76/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded."

18. In view of above discussion, according to this Court, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in rejecting the application under O 7 R 11 on the reason that the issue of limitation is mixed question of law and facts and requires evidence. Plaintiff's suit hopelessly filed beyond prescribed limitation. No real cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff, which could support his right to judgment.

19. In the result, present petition deserves consideration and thus, is allowed and impugned order dated 6.2.2024 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Lodhika below Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2023 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner plaintiff filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(d) of the Code is hereby quashed and set aside.

19.1 Application Exh.15 to reject the plaint is granted. Accordingly, Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2023 is ordered to be rejected.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:38:54 IST 2025