Madhya Pradesh High Court
Public In General vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2023
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2023
FIRST APPEAL No. 1433 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PUBLIC IN GENERAL THROUGH SHRICHAND
SINGHANI S/O LATE MOTUMAL SINGHANI AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS ACHARYA KRIPLANI WARD KATNI
TEHSIL KATNI DISTRICT KATNI (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. ARTI NAMDEO - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DISTRICT OFFICE JHINJHRI
DISTRICT KATNI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI GAUSHALA KATNI THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY GOPALCHARI GUPTA S/O MOTILAL
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O
RAGHUNATHGANJ WARD KATNI, TEHSIL KATNI,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. GOPALCHARI GUPTA S/O MOTILAL GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O RAGHUNATHGANJ WARD
KATNI, TEHSIL KATNI, DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. M/S SAMDARIYA BUILDERS THROUGH
PROPRIETOR KISHORE SAMDARIYA S/O
KESHRICHAND SAMDARIYA, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, R/O 16, SARAFA BAZAR, JABALPUR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. AJEET SAMDARIYA S/O KESHRICHAND
SAMDARIYA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O 16,
SARAFA BAZAR, JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 5/11/2023
5:59:47 PM
2
(SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SHRESH
AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO. 4 AND 5. NONE
FOR OTHER RESPONDENTS)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code has been
preferred at the instance of the appellant / plaintiff assailing the impugned order
dated 9.7.2022 passed in RCSA No.227-A/2020 by Third Additional District
Judge, Katni, whereby the suit has been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 (d)
of CPC being barred by limitation and the application under Order VII Rule 11
of CPC filed by the respondents no. 4 and 5 has been allowed.
3. The appellant has filed a civil suit against the defendants seeking relief of
declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the sale deed dated
31.05.2005 and the sanction / approval issued by the office of the Firms and
Society in favour of the defendants to be declared as void and no est in the
eyes of law.
4. The respondents no. 4 and 5 moved an application under Order VII Rule
11 (d) of CPC to reject the plaint. The application was moved on the basis of
Article 18 of the Limitation Act that the suit was to be filed within three years
from the date of transaction / sale deed i.e. 31.5.2005 and the suit was filed in
the year 2020.
5. The impugned order has been assailed by the appellant on the grounds
that the cause of action for filing the present suit accrued on 18.04.2018 that is
the date on which the plaintiff got information about the order of Director
General of Police and therefore, the limitation begins to run from 18.4.2018 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 5/11/2023
5:59:47 PM
the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and that could
have been decided only after recording the evidence. But, the trial court has
wrongly held that the suit was filed by the applicant for his personal interest
and that too after 15 years after acknowledgement of the sale deed. To bolster
his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical vs. Gujarat Indisl. Devt.
Corp. and another in Civil Appeal No.2075/2010 decided on 26.1.2010
{relevant paras 5 and 8} and Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank
of India Staff in Civil Appeal No.3460/2000 decided on 29-08-2005
{relevant page 5 last para}, and prayed that the present appeal be allowed
and the trial court be directed to decide the suit on merits.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5 submitted that
learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.
The trial Court has passed a well reasoned speaking order warrating no
intereference by this Court. To support his contention, relying upon a judgment
of Apex Court in the case of Sudhirdas vs. United Church of D Canada
India reported in 2020 (1) MPLJ has prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at greath length and
perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record.
8. The only question in the present appeal which arises as to whether the suit
was within the limitation or not.
9. As per the plaint averments it is gathered that the appellant / plaintiff filed
the suit for declaration of sale deed dated 31.5.2005 as null and void in the year
2020 and in fact, it should have been filed within three years from the date of
transaction. But the appellant contended that he got knowledge on 18.4.2018
only after the order passed by the DGP, therefore, the cause of action arose
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 5/11/2023
5:59:47 PM
from 18.4.2018. It is also evident from perusal of the plaint averments that the
appellant / plaintiff was well within the knowege about the sale deed in question
from beginning but he kept silent for a period of ten years from the date of
knowledge.
10. It is settled principle that the application preferred under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC has to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint
and not on the basis of the material produced by the defendants either in the
written statement or on the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The
grounds as pleaded by the appellant in the application have been elaborately
dealt with by the trial Court. On perusal of the plaint averments as well as the
order under challenge, prima facie it is found that learned trial Court has not
committed any error by passing the impugned order. The citations on which
reliance have been placed by the appellant do not help him looking to the facts
and circumstances of the present case. Whereas, the case law cited by learned
counsel for the respondents is very specific on the issue involved in the matter.
11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the suit was
barred by limitation. Under such circumstances, learned III Additional District
Judge, Katni has rightly rejected the plaint of the appellant because the suit was
barred by limitation. The reasonings assigned for dismissal of the plaint are
cogent. There is no basis by which the present appeal can be accepted.
12. Consequently, the first appeal filed by the appellant is hereby
dismissed.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE
JP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 5/11/2023
5:59:47 PM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 5/11/2023
5:59:47 PM
