Chattisgarh High Court
Onkar Prasad Gupta vs Kundan Lal Gupta on 13 August, 2025
1
Digitally
VISHAKHA signed by
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 136 of 2025
1 - Onkar Prasad Gupta S/o Late N.P. Gupta Aged About 59 Years R/o
Chetan Chowk Pendra Tahsil Pendra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
(Now Gaurella-Pendra- Marwahi) Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
1 - Kundan Lal Gupta S/o Late N.P. Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o
Chetan Chowk Pendra Tashil Pendra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
(Now Gaurella - Pendra - Marwahi) Chhattisgarh.
2 - Siyaram Gupta S/o Late Motiala Gupta Aged About 67 Years R/o 15
Friends Colony Mahadeva Indanpur Road Nani Allahabad Uttar
Pradesh.
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh. (Now District Gauella-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant :- Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra & Mr. Prakash
Kumar Mishra, Advocates
For State :- Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. Vinay Kumar Shrivastava,
Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
13.08.2025
1. The applicant has prayed for following reliefs in the petition:-
"That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow this revision petition and to quash / set
impugned order dated aside the 11.04.2025
(Annexure A-1) and further be pleased to reject
the plaint filled by the plaintiff in the interest of
justice."
2. Facts of the case are that, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a civil
suit on 26.07.2019 against the petitioner and respondents no. 2 &
3 regarding agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 54/2, area 1.73
acres, situated at village Kudkai, Patwari Circle No. 3, Tahsil
Pendra, District Bilaspur (now Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G.),
seeking declaration of the sale deed dated 29.03.2012 as null and
void and possession of the suit land. The plaintiff pleaded that he
purchased the land on 01.01.1986 from Rameshwar Prasad
Kurrey, constructed a kacha room and well, and, being in
government service in Sikkim, entrusted it to Narmada Prasad
Gupta (petitioner's father) for care. After Narmada Prasad's death
in 2000, his elder son Rajendra Gupta managed the land. Upon
retirement in March 2016, the plaintiff discovered the land was
recorded in petitioner's name through a sale deed allegedly
executed via a forged power of attorney dated 29.03.2012 for Rs.
5 lakhs, without his consent. The petitioner moved an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit was barred
by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act as the plaintiff
himself claimed knowledge of the sale deed in March 2016, and
possession relief was ancillary to cancellation of the sale deed.
The trial Court, however, dismissed the application on 11.04.2025
(Annexure A-1), holding that since possession was also sought,
the limitation period would be 12 years under Article 65 of the
Limitation Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has
illegally rejected his application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It is contended that the suit is
hopelessly barred by limitation; however, this aspect was not
considered by the trial Court. By order dated 11.04.2025, the
application was dismissed on the ground that limitation involves a
mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided at the
threshold in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is not the
appropriate stage to adjudicate the question of limitation under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. At this stage, only the averments of the
plaint are required to be examined. Since limitation is a mixed
question of fact and law, it can only be adjudicated by the trial
Court after the parties have led evidence in accordance with law.
He relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.
arising out of SLP(C) No. 13459/2024, and Rajeev Gupta & Ors.
vs. Prashant Garg & Ors. arising out of SLP(C) No. 2998/2022.
5. Although learned counsel for the applicant submits that there exist
direct case laws permitting limitation to be decided on an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case and the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikhila (supra) and Rajeev
Gupta (supra), and further noting that each case is unique in
nature, it cannot be held that the point of limitation can invariably
be adjudicated in every case at the stage of an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
6. Accordingly, the trial Court has not committed any error of law in
dismissing the application.
7. Consequently, the revision is disposed of.
8. The parties are at liberty to raise the issue of limitation before the
concerned trial Court during the course of the trial, where it may
be decided after appropriate evidence is led by the parties.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha
