[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Simted Overseas Private Limited ... vs Naresh Gupta on 16 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
1 CR-765-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
CIVIL REVISION No. 765 of 2025
SIMTED OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR
ABHAY GUPTA
Versus
NARESH GUPTA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Rizwan
Nizam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
RESERVED ON : 03.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.12.2025
.......................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
1 . The present revision petition has been filed being aggrieved by
the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned XIth Additional District
Judge, Indore (M.P.) in Civil Suit No. RCS A-658/2021, whereby the
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint
as the suit is clearly barred by law, has been dismissed.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant facts are tha t the respondent
No.1 /plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the petitioner/defendant for
declaration and permanent injunction by setting aside Sale Deed dated
18.06.2008. As per plaint averment, the respondent No. 1 is claiming himself
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
2 CR-765-2025
to be the owner of the land bearing the Survey No. 509/1 total area 2.433
hectare situated at village - Khajrana, Indore (M.P.). The respondent No. 2,
on the basis of a forged and fabricated Power of Attorney, illegally and
fraudulently executed a registered sale deed bearing No. 1A/1614 dated
18.06.2008 in favour of petitioner/defendant. It is further pleaded that the
aforesaid land in question is duly recorded in the name of the petitioner in
revenue records in compliance of the order passed in mutation Case No. 186-
A/06/2007-08 dated 11.09.2008 and since then, the petitioner is in lawful
possession of the property in question. Being aggrieved by the said order of
mutation, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer
in the year 2009-2010. Vide order dated 17.08.2011, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, remanded the mutation case to the Tehsildar with a direction to
decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to all
concerned parties. In the plaint, the respondent No. 1 has admitted that a
notice was issued to the government officer (defendant in the said plaint) on
19.03.2012 in relation to the registered Sale Deed No. 1614 dated
18.06.2008, executed in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent
No. 1 filed a Civil Suit No. 16-A/2013 before the Court of XIIth Civil Judge,
Class-II, Indore (M.P.) seeking cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed. The
said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.03.2014 on the ground of
non-payment of Court fee as well as on jurisdictional ground. Subsequently,
after the dismissal of the first suit, respondent No. 1 filed another Civil Suit
in the year 2021 for declaration and permanent injunction and further seeking
the relief of cancellation of the same sale deed executed on the basis of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
3 CR-765-2025
forged and fabricated Power of Attorney.
3 . Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the
present suit, instituted on 05.07.2021, is clearly barred by limitation. Learned
Trial Court, in utter disregard of the settled principles of law, passed an order
rejecting the application, being aggrieved by said order dated 04.07.2025,
present petition is preferred.
4. Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
contended that learned Trial Court has committed a grave error of law in
dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC as it did not properly consider the fact that respondent No.1/plaintiff
himself has admitted the fact that first cause of action arose in the year 2008.
The respondent No.1, has clearly admitted in the plaint that he was well
aware of the registered sale deed dated 18.06.2008 as early as in the year
2009-10 and several proceeding initiated by him in various Courts. He has
also contended that suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, and as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected under
Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. Article 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963
provides that for a suit seeking any declaration, the period of limitation is
three years from the date "when the right to sue first accrues." In the instant
case, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is seeking the relief declaration that the
registered sale deed dated 18.06.2008 be declared null and void on the
ground that the Power of Attorney was forged and fabricated. However, from
the averments in the plaint itself, it is evident that the plaintiff had actual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
4 CR-765-2025
knowledge of the sale deed as early as 2009-10, and had also issued a legal
notice in the year 2012, followed by prior suit in 2013 concerning the same
cause of action, which was dismissed on 29.03.2014 but the judgment &
decree remained unchallenged, therefore, the right to sue, if any, accrued no
later than 2008 or at most by 2009-10, despite this, the present suit was
instituted only on 05.07.2021. The impugned order passed, is even otherwise
illegal, inappropriate and against the settled principal of law and also against
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various High
Courts. On the aforesaid grounds, he has prayed that the present petition be
allowed and dismissed the Civil Suit No. RCS 658-A/2021.
5 . He has also placed reliance upon the judgments Anil Vs.
Pappu reported in 2024 (3) MPLJ 279, Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126,
Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421, Dahiben
Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through Legal
Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 and Sudhirdas Vs.
United Church of D Canada reported in 2020 (1) MPLJ.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the
prayer and argued in support of the order impugned. A prayer has been made
that the revision be dismissed.
7. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties, I have perused the record available.
8. For ready reference, Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, is reproduced
hereunder:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
5 CR-765-2025
"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- paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
6 CR-765-2025
prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for
correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp-paper, 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."
9. In the present case, the only issue which requires consideration
by this Court is that, as to when the plaintiff /respondent No. 1 came to know
the fact of registration of sale deed, by which, the right to sue first accrues to
him ?
10. It is narrated in the plaint filed by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 that
the land owned and possessed by plaintiff i.e. Khasra No. 509/1 Paki,
measuring 0.335, i.e., 40,128 sq. ft. (3729.36 sq. meters), was illegally and
unauthorizedly sold by defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 to Defendant No.
2/petitioner through Registered Sale Deed No. 1614, dated 18.06.2008, on
the basis of a forged Power of Attorney. The original copy of which is in the
possession of defendant No. 2, and certified copy has been attached as
Annexure-P/5. A copy of Power of Attorney has also been obtained from
Tehsildar in a mutation case, which was commended in the year 2008 and an
appeal was also filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for cancellation of
mutation and a prayer was made that in place of name of respondent No. 2,
name of petitioner be mutated, which reflects that the plaintiff/respondent
No. 1 was aware about the sale deed of 2008.
11. In para 5 of the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that when
the plaintiff came to know in respect of execution and registration of sale
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
7 CR-765-2025
deed dated 18.06.2008, plaintiff addressed a legal notice dated 19.03.2012 to
the petitioner, respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, according to which plaintiff was
well aware of the execution proceedings as well as of registered sale deed,
however, in spite of knowing the aforesaid fact, subsequent suit was filed
after a lapse of 9 years and 4 months. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 also made a
complaint to the Sub-Registrar on 09.08.2010 regarding cancellation of sale
deed.
12. A bare perusal of the plaint also shows that plaintiff filed a suit
in the year 2013 for declaring the 2008 sale deed as null and void. The said
suit was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2014 (Annexure-11), which also
proves the awareness of the plaintiff about execution and registration of sale
deed 2008.
13. Objection for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
should be raised as early as possible: Power to summarily reject the plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at the threshold
of the proceedings and this power is also available thereafter in the absence
of any restrictions statutorily placed. However, a preliminary objection as to
the rejection of plaint should be raised as early as possible, though the power
of the court to consider the same at a subsequent stage is not taken away.
See:
(i) Vithalbhai (P) Ltd Vs. Union Bank Of India, (2005) 4 SCC 315.
(ii) Samar Singh Vs. KedarNath, 1987 suppl. SCC 663.
14. Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC applies only where the statement as
made in the plaint without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
8 CR-765-2025
by any law: Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC applies only where the statement as
made in the plaint without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred
by any law in force. It does not apply in case of any disputed question.
Rejection of the plaint under Oder 7, Rule 11 CPC does not preclude the
plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13 of Order 7 CPC.
Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is applicable at any stage of the suit subject to above
position of law. Order 7, Rule 11 CPC even casts a duty on the court to
perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of
the infirmities provided in the four clauses of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC even
without the intervention of the defendant. See:
(i) Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India staff
Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510.
(ii) Sopan Sukhder Cable Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004)
3 SCC 137
(iii) Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557
(iv) ITC Ltd. Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70
(v) T. Arivandandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467
(vi) Rooplal Sathi Vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487
(vii) Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC
(viii) Bruce Vs. Odham Press Ltd., (1936) 1 KB 697.
15. It is a settled principle of law that the application under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC is to be decided on the basis of averment made in the
plaint and the document annexed therewith. Since the suit itself is barred by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
9 CR-765-2025
limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. In this regard, the law laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar
Gupta reported in (2007) 10 SCC 59 , is condign to quote here as under:-
"Evidence by way of affidavit of the plaintiff
(appellant herein) was filed on which cross
examination of the appellant was closed. In
the cross-examination, no question on
limitation was asked by the respondents. It is
at this stage, the respondent moved an
application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C.
for rejection of the plaint on the ground of
suit being barred by law of limitation. Reply
to the said application was filed. The trial
Court dismissed the suit of the appellant
herein merely on the basis of the limitation
..............."
16. In an another judgment delivered in the case of Kamala and
Others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 661,
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :-
"Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code
provides for rejection of plaint, clause (d)
whereof specifies "where the suit appears
from the statement in the plaint to be barred
by any law"
Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code has
limited application. It must be shown that the
suit is barred under any law. Such a
conclusion must be drawn from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
10 CR-765-2025
averments made in the plaint. Different
clauses in Order VII, Rule 11, in our opinion,
should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given
case, an application for rejection of the plaint
may be filed on more than one ground
specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a
clear finding to that effect must be arrived at.
What would be relevant for invoking clause
(d) of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code is the
averments made in the plaint. For that
purpose, there cannot be any addition or
subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the
part of a court can be invoked at different
stages and under different provisions of the
Code. Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code is one,
Order XIV, Rule 2 is another.
For the purpose of invoking Order VII,
Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of
evidence can be looked into. The issues on
merit of the matter which may arise between
the parties would not be within the realm of
the court at that stage. All issues shall not be
the subject matter of an order under the said
provision.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
11 CR-765-2025
.........The question involving a mixed
question of law and fact which may require
not only examination of the plaint but also
other evidence and the order passed in the
earlier suit may be taken up either as a
preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but,
the said question cannot be determined at that
stage.
........But, then the broad principle
which can be culled out therefrom is that the
court at that stage would not consider any
evidence or enter into a disputed question of
fact of law. In the event, the jurisdiction of
the court is found to be barred by any law,
meaning thereby, the subject matter thereof,
the application for registration of plaint
should be entertained."
17. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Delhi, in the
case of Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59.
18. Presumption of knowledge of execution of document from the
date of its registration for purposes of rejection of plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC: When a document is required to be registered and is got
registered as per the law, then the whole world comes to know (by way of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
12 CR-765-2025
constructive notice) about the execution and registration of such document
from the date of its registration. Referring to Explanation I to Section 3 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it has been held by the Supreme Court
that knowledge of execution and registration of such document for purposes
of limitation starts from the date of its registration. Plaint can be rejected by
the Court under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, if it is found to be barred by
limitation.
19. It is also settled position of law that the limitation for filing a
suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed is 3 years from the date of
registration of such sale deed or at the most from the date of the knowledge
of the registration of the sale deed.
20. In this regard, the following ratio held by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Anil (Supra) is worth to quote here :-
"16. The petitioner filed civil suit
before the trial Court for cancellation of the
sale deeds dated 26.12.1998 and 13.04.2006,
but perusal of the pleadings in the plaint in
para 3, it is found that respondent no.1
applied for mutation before the Revenue
Court in 2005 and 2006. Thereafter Tehsildar
vide order dated 14.06.2006 rejected the
mutation application filed by respondent no.1
and stated that respondent no.1 who filed
civil suit to get the sale deeds set aside, it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
13 CR-765-2025
means that respondent no.1 as well as
respondents no.4 to 9 were fully aware that
the said land had already been sold in the
year 1998.In any case, it is undisputed that in
the year 2006 respondent was well aware of
the sale deed executed in favour of
respondent no.2 in the year 1998 and was
also aware of the sale deed executed in
favour of the petitioner in the year 2006, but
the respondent did not dare to file civil suit
for cancellation of the sale deeds till 2016. It
is true that revenue authorities have no right
to cancel the sale deed and only civil Court
have right to cancel the sale deed, but
respondent have not filed a civil suit for
cancellation of the sale deeds dated
26.12.1998 and 13.04.2006. The suit was
filed on 19.07.2016 which was after a lapse
of 18 years and 10 years. So this suit is
clearly barred by limitation.
17. Hence, in the considered opinion of
this Court, there is no need to take any
evidence in this regard. It is the duty of the
plaintiff to file civil suit for cancellation of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
14 CR-765-2025
the sale deeds dated 26.12.1998 and
13.04.2006 within three years of the
execution of the sale deed or knowledge of
the execution of the sale deed. According to
the order dated 14.06.2006 passed by the
Tehsildar respondents were well aware about
the execution of the sale deeds in favour of
respondent no.2 in the year 1998 and in
favour of the petitioner in the year 2006. So,
this suit is clearly barred by limitation. The
trial Court has committed error in holding
that there is need to take evidence for
consideration of limitation. Therefore, the
impugned order passed by the trial Court is
not correct in the eye of law and deserves to
be set aside."
21. Admittedly, the present suit has been filed on 05.07.2021 i.e.
after a lapse of 13 years. The date of registration of the sale deed is
18.06.2008 and the knowledge of its execution and registration was well
within the knowledge of the plaintiff as discussed above.
22. Thus, what is the delay in filing of the present suit so far as the
challenge to the sale deed is concerned, can be summarized as, it is
indisputably and admittedly clear that the present suit challenging the sale
deed which was executed in the year 2008, is clearly barred by the law of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
15 CR-765-2025
limitation, which is only 3 years under Article 56, 58 & 59 of the Limitation
Act and the same is apparently clear from the plaint averments itself and the
documents filed by the Plaintiff.
23. Further, the position of law regarding limitation to file suit or
deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, has been
considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) ,
relevant portion of the case, is reproduced below :-
"The trial Court 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
(Munsif) should exercise his power
under Order VII rule11, C.P.C.
taking care to see that the round
mentioned therein fulfilled. And, if
clever drafting has created the
illusion of a cause of action, it
should be nipped in the bud at the
first hearing by examining the
party searchingly under Chapter X,
C.P.C. An activist Judge is the
answer to irresponsible law suits.
The trial court should insist
imperatively on examining the
party at the first hearing so that
bogus litigation can be shot-down
at the earliest stage. The Penal
Code is also resourceful enough to
meet such men (Ch.XI) and must
be triggered against them."
25. To deal with the issue at hand, it would be apposite to discuss
about Article 56, 58 & 59 of the Limitation Act. For ready reference, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
16 CR-765-2025
same are reproduced below :-
Description of suit Period of Time from which period begins
limitation to run
PART III-SUITS
RELATING TO
DECLARATIONS
To declare the
forgery of an
When the issue or registration
56 instrument issued Three years
becomes known to the plaintiff.
or
registered
To obtain any other When the right to sue first
58 Three years
declaration accrues
PART IV-SUITS
RELATING TO
DECREES AND
INSTRUMENTS
When the facts entitling the
To cancel or set
plaintiff to have the instrument
aside an instrument
or decree cancelled or set aside
59 or decree or for the Three years
or the contract rescinded first
rescission of a
become known to
contract
him
26. While dealing with the issue of limitation, the Apex Court has
discussed the Article 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act in the case of Dahiben
(supra), the Article 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, are as under :-
"Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963
Act, prescribe the period of limitation for filing a suit
where a declaration is sought, or cancellation of an
instrument, or rescission of a contract, which reads as
under :
Description of suit Period of Time
from which limitation period begins to run
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
17 CR-765-2025
58. To obtain any Three years When
the right to other declaration. sue first
accrues.
59. To cancel or set Three years When
the facts aside an instrument entitling the
plaintiff or decree or for the to have the
rescission of a instrument or decree contract.
cancelled or set aside or the contract
rescinded first become known to him.
The period of limitation prescribed under Articles
58 and 59 of the 1963 Act is three years, which
commences from the date when the right to sue first
accrues.
I n Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of
India & Anr, (2011) 9 SCC 126 , this Court held that the
use of the word 'first' between the words 'sue' and
'accrued', would mean that if a suit is based on multiple
causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to
run from date when the right to sue first accrues. That
is, if there are successive violations of the right, it
would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the
suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the
period of limitation counted from the date when the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
18 CR-765-2025
right to sue first accrued.
A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of
Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, held that the Court must
examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue
first accrued to the plaintiff, and whether on the
assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words
"right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of
legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when
the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted
when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when
there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such
right by the defendant against whom the suit is
instituted.
Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit
appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by
any law, the plaint shall be rejected."
27. Another judgment, relating to the same issue, Sudhirdas (supra),
wherein it has been observed thus :-
"10. The Court below, after hearing both the
parties has rejected the said application on
the ground that the grounds raised by the
petitioner in the application are mixed
question of law and facts and so far as the
ground no.(i) regarding limitation is
concerned, admittedly, plaintiffs in their
plaint has stated that the sale-deed has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
19 CR-765-2025
executed on 17/06/2009 and the suit has been
filed in Year 2017 i.e. after more than 8 years
while limitation for challenging the registered
sale-deed is 3 years. Thus, on the basis of
pleadings made by the petitioner in the plaint
itself the suit is barred by limitation."
28. Apart from the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, it is also
significant to note that a plaintiff, while filing the suit is required to
state/plead that when cause of action arose and how the suit is within
prescribed period of limitation. If the plaint is filed after expiry of period of
limitation prescribed under the law and the plaintiff is seeking exemption
from law of limitation, the plaintiff shall state ground of claiming such
exemption.
29. A bare perusal of the plaint as it is, it is apparent that nowhere in
the entire plaint it is stated the present suit is filed within the prescribed
period of limitation. From the plaint averments and the documents filed
along with the plaint, it is crystal clear that the present suit is filed beyond
the period prescribed in law of limitation. For this purpose, no evidence in
this regard is required because from the plaint averments itself, the present
suit is barred by law of limitation, thus, deserved to have been
rejected/dismissed at the threshold.
30. So far as the principle of res-judicata is concerned, Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Mishra Vs. Chandrika Pandey
(dead) by LRs reported in (2009) 3 SCC 720 has observed as under :-
12. The order dated 17.7.1973 directing
abatement of the said suit has attained finality.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
20 CR-765-2025
Appellant did not question the correctness or otherwise
of the said order. He also did not file any objection in
the consolidation proceedings contending that the same
involved non-agricultural lands. It is in the
aforementioned premise, we may consider the nature of
the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1994 being suit
No.510 of 1994, paragraph 2 whereof reads as under :-
"That the plaintiff is the owner in possession
of the Plot Nos.15/1.260, 16/289, 82/600,
140/745, 274/67, 488/117, 489/68, 423,55,
439/489, 323/122, 14/30, 46/31, 148/325,
260/54, 491/115, 835/398 as co-khatedar and
successor since prior to the zamindari
abolition and are cultivating the land."
13. It is not in dispute that the term `co-khatedar'
means `co-tenure holder'. It is not only that for the first
time in the plaint an averment was made that deed of
gift, inter alia, contained some house properties, further
averments made in the said plaint revealed that the
name of the respondent herein had been entered in the
records of the consolidation proceedings in respect of
Plot No.153/08, 185/148, 504, 1.360, 611/304.
The reliefs prayed for therein are as under :-
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously
be pleased to pass a decree of permanent
injunction in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant pertaining to the suit
property. The defendant may be ordered to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
21 CR-765-2025
not transfer the Araji No.153/87, 185/148,
504, 1.360, 611/304 which is in possession of
the plaintiff."
We have noticed hereinbefore that the Araji lands
are agricultural lands.
14. Suit No.510/94 covers the same property
which was the subject matter of Suit No.550 of 1969.
As noticed hereinbefore, the said suit has abated by an
order dated 17.7.1973. Another suit by the appellant,
therefore, would not only be barred by res judicata but
also under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Furthermore, appellant had not filed any
objection in the consolidation proceedings, which again
go to show that it was accepted that the lands in
question were agricultural lands."
31. In the present case the respondent No. 1/plaintiff had filed a Civil
Suit No. 16-A/2013 before the Court of XIIth Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore
(M.P.) seeking cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed. The said suit was
dismissed vide judgment dated 29.03.2014 on the ground of non-payment of
Court fee as well as on jurisdictional ground. The operative para No. 6 & 7
of the judgment required to be quoted here as under :-
"6. करण म दिशत द तावेज के अवलोकन से इस
करण म मांगी गयी सहायता के संबंध म पंजीब
वकंय प जो फज आम मु यार के आधार पर
ितवाद . 2 को पंजीकृ त वकल लेख क. 1614
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
22 CR-765-2025
दनांक 18.6.08 के ारा व य कये गये व य प को
अवैध व शू य भावी घो षत करवाने के संबंध म फज
आम मु यार क ित ०पी० 6 के संबंध म उ
मु यारनामा के आधार पर कया गया व य लेख कं.
1614 अवैध व शू य भावी घो षत करने का अनुतोष
मांगा गया है । सा य म क तबंद खतौनी वष 2006-07
क दा वया जमीन के संबंध म मा णत स य ितिल प
०पी० ३ के प म सा य म दिशत क है । उ व य
प कं. 1614 पंजीब दनांक 27.5.08 को ितवाद क.
1 ारा ितवाद कं. 2 के प म पंजीब वकय प
०पी० 5 द तावेज सा य म दिशत कया है और इस
संबंध म आम मु यारनामा जसे फज व कूटरिचत
होना दिथत है ०पी० 6 के प म सा य म दिशत
कराया है । अनु वभागीय अिधकार का आदे श दनांक
17.8.11 पी० 7 व इस संबंध म तहसीलदार का आदे श
क मा णत स य ितिल प ०पी० 8 तहसीलदार को
जला पंजीयक का प क ित ०पी० 9, ितवाद गण
को े षत सूचना प पी० 10 उनक पंजीब
रज या ०पी० 11 से 14. आप उप पंजीयक
कायालय म जो पेश क पठ 20. आप क रसीद
०पी० 21. उपपंजीयक के सम आप ०पी० 23 व
ह ता र वशेष ारा द गयी रपोट दनांक 07.02.10
०पी० 24 व वाद ारा किम र को े षत िशकायत
०पी० 25 सा य म दिशत क है ।
7. करण म वाद क ओर से पेश द तावेज म वाद के
प म िन पा दत मूल पंजीब व य प वाद त
भूिम का दनांक 01.06.1976 मूल पेश नह ं है . भू
अिधकार पु तका पी० 2 भाग 2 पेश है ले कन भू
अिधकार पु तका भाग 1 पेश नह ं है । करण म वाद
प क ओर से ह तलेखा पर क क रपोट ०पी० 24
पेश क है , जसम रपोट दनांक 07.2.10 म दिशत
आम मु यारनामा 30.11.88 पर दिशत ह ता र फज
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
23 CR-765-2025
कुटरिचत होना यां वाद नरे श गु ा ारा न िलखा होना
िन पा दत न होत दिशत कया है । ले कन इस संबंध म
ह तलेखा पर क क सा य या रपोट कोई िन ायक
सा य नह ं है । करण म ितवाद गण प ारा
उप थत होकर कोई ितवाद तुत न कर इस संबंध
म कोई ितवाद या जवाबदावा पेश नह ं कया है ।
करण म वाद यायालय से मूलतः पंजीब वकय प
दनांक 27.05.08 जो दनांक 18.06.08 को पंजीब
कया गया है द तावेज कमांक 1614. को अवैध व शू य
भावी घो षत कराना चाहता है । उ द तावेज म
संप का वकय/ यवहार मू य एक करोड बीस लाख
है , जसका दावा सुनने व िनराकरण का े ािधकार इस
यायालय को नह ं है एवं इस वकय प को उदघोषणा
ारा व इस वकय प को अवैध व शू य घो षत करने
का े ािधकार भी इस यायालय को नह ं है व
यायशु क भी एक करोड बीस लाख के मू यांकन पर
ह वाद को दे ना होगा। इस कार मांगे गये अनुतोष के
संबंध म वाद क ओर से वाद का उिचत मू यांकन कर
उिचत याय शु क अदा नह ं कया है एवं एक करोड़
बीस लाख के व य प को शू य घो षत करने के
संबंध म उिचत े ािधकार के यायालय म वाद को
पेश नह ं कया है , इस यायालय को इस वाद क
सुनवाई व िनराकरण का े ािधकार नह ं है ।"
3 2 . Since the earlier suit had already been dismissed as aforesaid,
therefore, the present suit is not maintainable as the same touches the
doctrine of res judicata.
33. The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental legal principle that
bars the re-litigation of a claim or issue that has already been decided by a
competent court. It is a cornerstone of the justice system, rooted in public
policy to ensure finality in litigation, conserve judicial resources, and protect
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
24 CR-765-2025
parties from repeated harassment over the same matter.
34. The finding of the learned trial court that whether the plaintiff
had the knowledge of the 2008 sale deed since inception, is a mixed question
of law and facts and for this purpose, evidence is necessary. It clear that the
objection raised by defendant/petitioner with regard to the limitation was not
based on any defense, but was based on the plaint averment itself and the
documents filed by the plaintiff himself. Therefore, the finding that the
question of limitation in the present case is a mixed question of law and facts,
is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and perverse also and it appears rather
clear that the learned trial court did not even adhered to and read the plaint
averments and the documents filed by the plaintiff himself.
35. Apart from the above, it may also be mentioned that the suit is
also otherwise barred by law for want of claiming relief for possession, as
provided in proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Admittedly the
Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land because he had admitted this fact
in his complaint made to the Divisional Commissioner (Annexure A/10 to
the Revision). Even otherwise the same is also barred by prescribed period of
limitation.
36. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
averments in the plaint, the pleadings, and the impugned order dated
04.07.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India deserves to be allowed.
37. The plaintiff's own averments in the plaint unmistakably establish
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
25 CR-765-2025
that the right to sue first accrued, at the latest, in 2009-2010 upon knowledge
of the Sale Deed and mutation entries, and was acted upon by way of appeal,
notice in 2012, and the prior suit in 2013. No case of concealed fraud or
delayed discovery of material facts is pleaded that could extend the
limitation under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The present suit,
instituted on 05.07.2021, is thus ex facie barred by limitation, having been
filed well beyond the prescribed period of three years.
38. The power under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is mandatory where
the plaint discloses that the suit is barred by law, including limitation, on its
own averments (taken as true). The learned Trial Court fell in grave error in
rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without
appreciating these admitted facts, which render the suit manifestly hopeless
and an abuse of process.
39. The prior dismissal of Civil Suit No. 16-A/2013 (seeking identical
relief in respect of the same Sale Deed) further reinforces that no fresh cause
of action accrued for the present suit.
40. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no need
to take any evidence in this regard. It is the duty of the plaintiff to file civil
suit for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 18.06.2008 within three years
from the date of registration of the sale deed or knowledge of the execution
of the sale deed. According to the plaint averments like, legal notice dated
19.03.2012 issued to the petitioner, respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, complaint
made by respondent No.1/plaintiff to the Sub-Registrar and also obtained
certified copy from the office of Tehsildar in a mutation case, respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36994
26 CR-765-2025
No.1/plaintiff was well aware about the execution of the sale deeds in favour
of petitioner/defendant No. 2 in the year 2008. So, this suit is clearly barred
by limitation. The Trial Court has committed error of law in holding that
there is need to take evidence for consideration of limitation. Therefore, the
impugned order passed by the trial Court is not correct in the eye of law and
deserves to be set aside.
41. Ex-consequenti, the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 is hereby
set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC is is hereby allowed and Civil Suit No. RCS 658-A/2021 is
rejected, being barred by limitation.
42. The Civil Revision stands allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Vindesh
