Mandirshri Devi Ji Ashok Nagar ... vs Smt. Bhuri Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 13396 MP

                          1
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT GWALIOR
                           BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                 ON THE 12th OF OCTOBER, 2022

              CIVIL REVISION No. 525 of 2019

     BETWEEN:-
     MANDIRSHRI DEVI JI ASHOK NAGAR THR.
     JASWANT SINGH S/O SHRI RAMNATH, AGED
     ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILL. RAMPUR THASIL
     SIRONJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI SAMEER KUMAR SHRIVASTAV ADVOCATE)

     AND
1.   SMT. BHURI BAI D/O SHRI NARAYAN SINGH
     VILL. KAMADI THASIL KURWAI (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

2.   MAKHAN SINGH S/O KALYAN SINGH, AGED
     ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL RAMPUR TEH SIRONJ
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   LAKHAN SINGH S/O KALYAN SINGH, AGED
     ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL RAMPUR TEH SIRONJ
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   GOVIND SINGH S/O KALYAN SINGH VILL
     RAMPUR TEH SIRONJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.   LAMBARDAR S/O KALYAN SINGH, AGED
     ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL RAMPUR TEH SIRONJ
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.   GAYA BAI W/O KALYAN SINGH VILL RAMPUR
     TEH SIRONJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.   RAMRATI BAI W/O KALYAN SINGH VILL
     PEEPALKHEDA  POST   BEELKHEDI TEH
     MUNGAWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)

8.   CHARAN SINGH S/O BAIJNATH SINGH VILL
     KHEJRA TEH SIRONJ (MADHYA PRADESH)
                            2
9.    LAXMAN SINGH S/O BAIJNATH SINGH VILL
      KHEJRA TEH SIRONJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

10.   BHURA SINGH S/O BAIJNATH SINGH, AGED
      ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILL MATA KHEJRA TEH.
      SIRONJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

11.   RAMLESH BAI D/O BAIJNATH SINGH VILL
      MATA KHEJRA TEH. SIRONJ (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

12.   CHHOTI   BAI   S/O  BAIJNATH    SINGH
      OCCUPATION: MINOR UG BAIJNATH SINGH
      VILL MATA KHEJRA TEH. SIRONJ (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

13.   SHYAM BAI D/O BALDEV SINGH, AGED ABOUT
      65 YEARS, VILL DHAMAUKHEDI TEH SIRONJ
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

14.   MATHURA BAI W/O KHILAN SINGH, AGED
      ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILL HINOTIYA TEH SIRONJ
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

15.   BADRIPRASAD S/O AJAB SINGH, AGED ABOUT
      60 YEARS, VILL BABULKHEDI TEH SIRONJ
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

16.   BHAGWAN SINGH S/O NARAYAN SINGH, AGED
      ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILL BABULKHEDI TEH
      SIRONJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

17.   SMT. BALAL BAI D/O NARAYAN SINGH, AGED
      ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL BHUKHARI TEH SIRONJ
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

18.   NANNI BAI D/O NARAYAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT
      46  YEARS, VILL AURAKHEDI TEH SIRONJ
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

19.   RAMPYARI BAI S/O NARAYAN SINGH, AGED
      ABOUT 44 YEARS, VILL BHUKHARI TEH SIRONJ
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

20.   POONA BAI D/O NARAYAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT
      40 YEARS, VILL LAKHAKHEDI TEH SIRONJ
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

21.   JAGAT SINGH S/O BADAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT
      50    YEARS, VILLLIDHODA TEH SIRONJ
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                   3

22.     KALYAN SINGH S/O BADAN SINGH, AGED
        ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL LIDHODA TEH SIRONJ
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

23.     KALYAN SINGH S/O BADAN SINGH, AGED
        ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL LIDHODA TEH SIRONJ
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

24.     BHURA SINGH S/O BADAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT
        35  YEARS, VILL LIDHODA TEH SIRONJ
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

25.     MUNSHILAL S/O BHURA, AGED ABOUT 35
        Y E A R S , VILL BABULKHEDI TEH SIRONJ
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

26.     SMT. GUDDI BAI D/O BHURA, AGED ABOUT 28
        Y E A R S , VILL BARKHEDA ASHOKNAGAR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

27.     ABRAR SINGH S/O SINGHRAM SINGH, AGED
        ABOUT 15 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR UG
        SINGHRAM SINGH VILL PANWARI TEH ARON
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

28.     COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THE
        STATE  OF   MADHYA   PRADESH VIDISHA
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI DEEPAK SHRIVASTAV - ADVOCATE FOR
        RESPONDENT NO.1)

      Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

Petitioner filed this Civil Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 aggrieved by the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.300015/16 on 27.06.2019, by which his application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was dismissed.

In brief, facts of the case are that respondent No.1 has filed a Civil Suit before Court below against petitioner and other defendants for declaration,

permanent injunction and claiming possession and in her plaint paragraph No.11 she mentioned that cause of action arose on 05.12.2012. S.D.O. Sironj, vide its order dated 05.11.2012 in compliance of judgment passed by First Additional District Judge, Sironj in Appeal No.21-A/2002 directed the Tehsildhar to delete the name of respondent/ plaintiff and in her place name of petitioner and other defendants be mutated. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of S.D.O. passed on 05.11.2012, respondent/plaintiff filed aforesaid Civil Suit on 05.02.2016. After getting notice of the plaint, petitioner appeared. During trial, she has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C on the basis that suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation only on perusal of the plaint itself because in paragraph 11 of the plaint, cause of action has been shown to be arisen on 05.12.2012 and Civil Suit was filed on 05.02.2016. As per Articles 58 and 59 of the limitation Act, limitation of three years has been prescribed. His application was dismissed by the trial Court without touching the averments made in the application.

Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that as per title of Civil S uit, suit is filed for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for.

On bare perusal of the plaint of respondent No.1, it reflects that on the title of the plaint, she has written suit for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. But on perusing the averment of plaint in paragraph No.11, she has shown the cause of action has arisen on 05.11.2012, whereby S.D.O. Sironj, directed the Tehsildar to delete the name of the respondent/plaintiff in revenue record and substitute the name of present petitioner along with others. Aforesaid Civil Suit ought to have been filed as per

Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act within three years of cause of action arose on 05.11.2012, but aforesaid Civil Suit has been filed much after the limitation period of three years on 05.02.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied upon the judgment in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh reported in 2019 (3) JLJ 112.

Looking to the averment of plaint, it is abundantly clear that cause of action arose to the respondent/plaintiff on 05.11.2012, and therefore, she ought to have filed a Civil Suit within three years as per Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, but she has filed the suit after lapse of aforesaid period.

In the aforesaid situation, provisions of Order 7 Rule 11D of C.P.C. are attracted. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application of the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, by allowing the Civil Revision, impugned order dated 27.6.2019 of the Court below is set-aside and suit is dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 D of CPC.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE mani

SUBASRI MANI 2022.10.12 18:22:01

-07'00'