Allahabad High Court
Ravi Pratap Singh And 4 Others vs Prahlad Singh And 2 Others on 13 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Reserved On: 28.10.2025
Delivered On: 13.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 16070 of 2024
Ravi Pratap Singh and 4 others
..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Prahlad Singh and 2 others
..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Anuruddh Chaturvedi, Munna Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Adya Prasad Tewari
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard Shri Anuruddh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Original Suit No. 574 of 2022, rejecting the application moved by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.05.2023, is also under challenge.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Original Suit No. 574 of 2022 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondents against defendant/petitioners for cancellation of sale deed dated 21.10.1992 executed by Smt. Bhagwanta in favour of Ranjit Singh son of Rajendra Singh. The plaintiff also claimed cancellation of another sale deed executed by Smt. Bhagwanta in favour of one Shashi Prabha. The relief of mandatory injunction was also claimed by the plaintiff restraining the defendants not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute. After being noticed, defendants/respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on 28.02.2023 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 3 read with Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Plaintiffs/respondents filed their objections to the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on 15.03.2023. The trial court by judgment and order dated 19.05.2023, rejected the application filed by the defendants/petitioners. Against the judgment and order dated 19.05.2023, Civil Revision No. 123 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by the revisional court i.e. Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Gorakhpur by judgment and order dated 31.07.2024, hence, the present writ petition.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that limitation as provided under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing a suit for cancellation of an instrument is three years from the date of execution of the instrument. In the present case, the instrument i.e. sale deed which is sought to be canceled is of the year 1992 and the suit itself has been filed on 18.07.2022 and as such, the suit is barred by limitation and the courts below have erroneously rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is an example of a clever drafting and learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.; 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 435.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that for considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. only the plaint averment has to be seen and from the perusal of the plaint it is apparent that the suit is not barred by limitation. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that Article 59 of the Limitation Act provides that limitation for filing a suit for cancellation or setting aside an instrument or decree or for recession of a contract is three years but the limitation start running only when the plaintiff comes to know about the facts, entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set-aside. The date of knowledge of instrument is the material date for the start of period of limitation and not the date of instrument. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that Rule 6 of Order VII provides that court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any ground set forth in the plaint.
6. Before considering the rival submissions it would be appropriate to look into the relevant provision of the statute i.e. Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., Order VII Rule 6 C.P.C., and Article 59 of the Schedule appended with Limitation Act, 1963. Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is quoted 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 written 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;
[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate];
[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9];
[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers 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 from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]
7. Order VII Rule 6 of C.P.C., which is quoted as under:-
"6. Grounds of exemption from limitation law.
Where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed:
Provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any ground not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint."
8. Article 59 of Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 is contained in Part 4 of the Schedule 2, provides limitation for suits relating to cancellation of decree and instruments. Article 59 of Schedule appended to the Limitation Act is quoted as under:-
9. Part IV- Suits relating to Decrees and Instruments.
59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract.
Three years
When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.
10. From the reading of Clause 11(d) of Order VII C.P.C., it is clear where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law, the Court shall reject the plaint.
11. Indeed, Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. gives ample power to the Court to reject the plaint, if from the averments in the plaint, it is evident that the suit is barred by any law including the law of limitation, this position is no more res integra.
12. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
13. In Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1986 Supp SCC 315 this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court in the following words:
12. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.
14. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
15. Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement made in the plaint to be barred by any law, hence, in order to decide whether the suit is barred by law, it is the statement in the plaint will have to be construed. The Court while deciding such an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. must have due regard only to the statements made in the plaint. Whether the suit is barred by any law must be determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in the case.
16. In case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal; (2017) 13 SCC 174: (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602; the Apex Court has summarized the legal position as follows :-
The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.
17. Article 59 of the Schedule appended with Limitation Act, 1963, provides that limitation for filing suit for cancellation or setting aside an instrument or decree or for rescission of a contract is three years. Time from which the period of limitation will start has also been provided in Article 59 and according to which when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or the decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to the plaintiff. Thus, from the Article 59 of the Schedule, it is clear that though the limitation have been provided for cancellation or setting aside an instrument is three years, but the limitation will start running only when the plaintiff comes to know about the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside. Thus, it is the date of the knowledge of the instrument which is the material date for start of period of limitation and not the date of instrument.
18. With the help of the counsel for the parties, I have perused the plaint of Original Suit No. 574 of 2022 which has been filed as annexure no. 1 to the petition. In paragraph no. 12 & 13 of the plaint, it has been stated by the plaintiff that he came to know about the sale deeds in the month of June, 2022. Paragraph no. 12 & 13 of the plaint are quoted as under:
12. यह कि प्रतिवादीगण ने चुपके-चुपके नायब तहसीलदार खजनी के न्यायालय से दिनांक 06.07.2021 को किसी तथाकथित बैनामा दिनांक-21.10.92 के आधार पर सूची नं01 व 2 में वर्णित आराजियात पर भगवन्ता के स्थान पर अपना नाम जरिये कार्यवाही खारिज दाखिल अंकित करा लिया और खतौनी के माध्यम से उक्त तथाकथित बैनामा दिनांक 21.10.32 की जानकारी वादीगण को माह जून सन् 2022 में हुई। तब वादीगण ने दिनांक 23.06.2022 को बैनामा की नकल की दरखारत दिया जो दिनांक 27.06.2022 को वादीगण को प्राप्त हुआ। इसके पूर्व वादीगंण को तथाकथित बैनामा दिनांकित 21.10.92 की कोई जानकारी नही थी। प्रतिवादीगण तथा उनके पिता, पत्नी व माता ने तथाकथित बैनामा दिनांक 21.10.92 का कोई जिक्र खारिज दाखिलं के आदेश दिनांक 06.07.2021 के पूर्व नहीं किया। श्रीमती भगवन्ता की मृत्यु सन् 2008 में हुई उनके जोवन काल में भी उक्त बैनामा का जिक्र कही नहीं किया गया तथा 229 बी०/176 के मुकदमें में तथा उनके कायमीयों में एवं कमिश्नर के न्यायालय में दाखिल अपील में भी नहीं किया जानबूझकर उसके अस्तित्व को दिनांक 21.10.92 खारिज, दाखिल के मुकदमा में जून सन् 2021 तक छिपाये रखा जो निर्विवाद रूप से बैनामा की सत्यता परं प्रश्नचिन्ह पैदा करता है और इस बात को इंगित करता है कि तथाकथित बैनामा श्रीमती भगवन्ता द्वारा निष्पादित नहीं किया गया, अन्यथा पंजीकृत बैनामेदार इतने लम्बे अन्तराल तक बैनामे के अस्तित्व को नहीं छिपाये रखते।
13. यह कि खतौनी के नकल लेने से तथा बैनामा की नकल लेने से वादीगण को यह भी ज्ञात हुआ कि प्रतिवादीगण संख्या 1 व 2 के पिता व प्रतिवादीनी सं03 के पति रणजीत सिंह के पक्ष में एक बैनामा सूची नं01 में वर्णित आराजी के 1/2 भाग का अर्थात 0.842 हे० तथा उसी बैनामे में आराजी संख्या 88क क्षेत्रफल 0.043 हे० का बैनामा भगवन्ता द्वारा निष्पादित किया जाना दर्शित किया गया है और दिनांक 21.10.92 को ही एक अन्य बैनामा श्रीमती शशि प्रमा पत्नी श्री राम सिंह जो प्रतिवादी सं० 4 व 5 की माँ है के पक्ष में सूची 1 में वर्णित आराजी संख्या 178 से० 0.842 हे० का भगवन्ता द्वारा निष्पादित किया जाना दर्शित किया गया है।
19. Rule 6 of Order VII provides that where the suit is barred by limitation, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show the ground of exemption in the plaint. The provisions of Rule 6 are mandatory in nature, whenever the plaintiff seeks exemption from the operation of law of limitation, he must take grounds on which such exemption is sought. If no such ground is shown by the plaintiff, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
20. From the averments as made in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the plaint referred above, it is clear that the plaintiff-respondent has claimed exemption from the law of limitation and has made necessary pleadings in this regard as contemplated by Rule 6 of Order VII and therefore, on the plain reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that the present suit is barred by limitation as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is not only the plaint but also the documents filed by the petitioner along with the plaint has to be taken into consideration while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead reported in (2020) 7 S.C.C. 366. In case of Dahiben (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph nos. 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5 and 12.6 had held as under:
"12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr., (2004) 9SCC 512, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
12.4 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under :
"Order VII Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.- (1)Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filled with the plaint.
(2)Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3)A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4)Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory." (emphasis supplied)
Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
12.5 In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
12.6 At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137."
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the averments made by the plaintiff in paragraph no. 9, 11 of the plaint and has also relied upon the judgment of Assistant Collector dated 21.09.2001 in case No. 183 of 1992 under Section 229B (Prahlad Singh and another v. Bhawanta and others) filed at page no. 41 of the paper book; judgment and order dated 05.07.2005 passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners for recalling the judgment dated 27.09.2001, annexed at page no. 37 of the paper book and order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the appellate court i.e. Commissioner, annexed at page no. 31 of the paper book.
23. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that these documents were filed by the plaintiffs/respondents along with his plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the list of the documents filed by the plaintiff which has been annexed at page no. 17 of the paper book. Paragraph no. 9 & 11 of the plaint relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quoted as under:
9- यह कि उक्त वाद दिनांक 21.09.2001 को वादीगणं के पक्ष में डिक्री हुआ और उसमें धारा 176 के अन्तर्गत प्रारम्भिक डिक्री पारित हुई। जिसमें खाता संख्या 105,12,14 में वादीगण का 1/2 अंश निर्धारित हुआ जिसमें सूची नं01 में वर्णित आराजी भी शामिल थी। इसी प्रकार खाता संख्या 171 व 106 में वादीगण का 1/4 अंश निर्धारित हुआ जिसमें सूची नं02 में वर्णित आराजी भी सम्मिलित थी और उसी डिक्री में वादीगण का नाम वरासतन सूर्यजोता के स्थान पर दर्ज होने का आदेश भी पारित हुआ।
11- यह कि असिसटेन्ट कलेक्टर के निर्णय दिनांक 21.09.01 के विरुद्ध प्रतिवादीगण के पिता, पति एवं माता रणजीत सिंह, शशिप्रभा ने एक अवधि बाधित पुनस्थापन प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था जो गुण दोष के आधार पर दिनांक05.07.05 को निरस्त हो गया। जिसके विरूद्ध उन लोगों ने आयुक्त मण्डल गोरखपुर के न्यायालय में अपील प्रस्तुत किया जो सुनवाई के पश्चात दिनांक 05.03.20 को खारिज हो गया। इस प्रकार धारा 229 बी. धारा 176 में पारित निर्णय व डिक्री व दिनांक 21.09.2001 पुष्ट हुआ जो आज तक बहाल है।
24. From reading of the aforesaid paragraphs it cannot be said that plaintiffs/respondents had knowledge of the sale deeds impugned in the suit.
25. With the help of the counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment and order dated 21.09.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector which has been referred above and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner from which it is apparent that there is no reference of the sale deeds as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the order dated 05.07.2005 passed by the Assistant Collector on the restoration application filed by the petitioners which has been referred above and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner there is also no reference to the sale deed. I have also perused the order of the appellate court 05.03.2020 referred above and relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner wherein there is a recital that विवादित भूमि में से कुछ हिस्सेे का बैनामा भगवन्ती ने रणजीत सिंह व शशिप्रभा सिंह को सन् 1992 में ही कर दिया था।" Except for this recital there is nothing in the entire order so as to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff have knowledge of the said sale deed because particulars of the sale deeds referred such as date, registration, etc. were not in the recital, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner had knowledge of the sale deed which he is seeking to be cancelled in the suit.
26. Apart from these three documents, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the document which he has filed along with supplementary affidavit but in my view, the said documents cannot be looked upon as that were not filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. While deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. the Court has to confine only to the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed with the plaint. It would also relevant that neither the written statement nor the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. can be relied upon to consider the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
27. Since at the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 it is only the plaint averment has to be seen. In the present case, from reading of the plaint as a whole and proceedings on the basis of that averment made therein are correct, which is that the court is required to do so, it cannot be said that the said pleading ex-facie disclose that the suit is barred by limitation. Even from the documents referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered by me above, it cannot said that the suit is prima-facie barred by limitation.
28. Question of limitation normally is mixed question of law and fact. In case of Ramesh B Desai and others vs. Vipin Vadilal Mehta and others; (2006) 5 SCC 638; the Apex Court while dealing with the issue of limitation held that a plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts, as in every case, the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact.
29. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this plaint has been cleverly drafted in order to avoid the question of limitation, I am of the view that from the reading of the plaint, prima-facie it does not appear so. Facts and circumstances of the case in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are different and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
30. In my view, no illegality has been committed by the court below in rejecting the application moved by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
31. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the trial court has held that the suit is not barred by limitation and this finding will come in his way at the time of deciding of issue framed in this regard. In my view, any finding recorded by the trial court is only tentative finding subject to the evidence lead by the parties. In case, issue regarding limitation is decided by the trial court at a subsequent stage, i.e. after leading evidence by the parties, finding recorded while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., will not come in the way.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
November 13, 2025
Ved Prakash
