Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Suchitra Dubey vs Sattar S/O Late Ibrahim Patel Through ... on 7 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 1 CR No.225/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION No.225 of 2024
SMT. SUCHITRA DUBEY
...Petitioner
and
SATTAR S/O LATE IBRAHIM PATEL THROUGH LRS.
SHAMMI PATEL AND OTHERS.
...Respondents
Reserved on 19.02.2025
Pronounced on 07.03.2025
Appearance:
Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Devaasheesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 / LRs.
Shri Yashwardhan Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to
6.
Shri Tushar Sodani, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.7 /
State.
JUDGMENT
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 2 CR No.225/2024
The present Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the petitioner / defendant No.6
being aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2024 passed by learned 4th
District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.31-A/2016, whereby her
application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 for rejection of the plaint has been rejected /
dismissed.
02. The aforesaid impugned order dated 02.03.2024 has been
challenged on the following factual backdrop that learned Court below
has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not rejecting the subject plaint
having been barred by law of limitation. The plaintiffs instituted the suit
to abuse the process of law and to harass the defendants as they have filed
the subject civil suit No.31-A/2016 on the basis of compromise taken
place in Civil Suit No.637-A/1997 dated 21.01.1998.
03. Originally, respondents No.1 to 3 / plaintiffs instituted a suit before
learned 4th District Judge, Indore bearing Civil Suit No.31-A/2016 on
11.03.2016 seeking declaration of title to the suit land, for declaration that
the mutation in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 (Mansoor and Aamna Bi)
and sale deed dated 24.05.2006 executed in favour of defendant No.3
(Sanjay Dabra) is not binding upon the plaintiffs and for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their
possession over the suit lands.
04. (i). The plaintiffs filed a present suit that subject property is the
sole ownership and possession of late Ibrahim Patel, father of the
plaintiffs, is situated in Patwari Halka No.58 (old No.23) in survey
Nos.69, 70, 71, 79 to the extent of area 1.311 hectares, 0.910 hectares and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 3 CR No.225/2024
1.975 hectares, total area 5.317 hectares. Further averred that after the
death of plaintiffs' father Ibrahim Patel, their names were mutated in the
revenue records in mutation case No.23/20-10-88 dated 20.10.1988 and
the names of plaintiffs were recorded as the heirs of Ibrahim Patel in the
revenue record, since then they are the ownership and possesser of the
suit land, apart from the suit land owned and possessed by plaintiffs,
another land situated in Village Nipania, Tehsil and District Indore was
sold by the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed No.334(b) dated
29.04.1997 to Gulmohar Grih Nirman Sanstha. Defendants No.1 and 2
(Mansoor and Ors. vs. Prem Goyal and Ors.) filed a suit for declaration of
title in Civil Suit No.637-A/1997, said suit was compromised between the
plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 on 21.01.1998 and defendants No.1
and 2 have no objection regarding the sale of land to Gulmohar Grih
Nirman Sanstha and in future they will not claim any title as they are heirs
of father of the plaintiff late Ibrahim Patel and the plaintiffs will be free to
use and enjoy the entire land of deceased Ibrahim Patel being his heirs.
Further stated that defendants No.1 and 2 will neither take any action as
the heirs of deceased Ibrahim Patel nor will challenge the title of the
plaintiffs. Further averred that defendants No.1 and 2 (Mansoor and
Aamna Bi) have also accepted that they are the son and wife of the Wali
Mohammad.
(ii). Further averred that defendants No.1 and 2 executed a sale deed
vide document No.478(J) dated 24.05.2006 in favour of defendant No.3
(Sanjay Dabra) in respect of part of suit land admeasuring 1.771 hectares,
who also got his name mutated in the revenue records as per Case No.3-
A-6/2006-07 dated 28.11.2008 without the consent and knowledge of the
plaintiffs and the said sale deed is fake and forged has been done without
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 4 CR No.225/2024
any consideration. Further averred that plaintiffs came to know on the
basis of fake and forged sale deed when they received summons of
revenue Case No.4A-27/2006-07 (Sanjay Dabra vs. Gaffar and Ors.) for
date of appearance on 14.03.2007 that plaintiff has previously instituted a
suit against defendants No.1 to 4 bearing Civil Suit No.184-A/2007,
which was withdrawn vide order dated 19.02.2008 with liberty to file
fresh suit. Further averred that the plaintiffs filed another suit against
defendant No.1 to 4 in Civil Suit No.4-A/2008, said suit was withdrawn
with permission to file a fresh suit on 13.05.2009 and the defendants were
not creating hindrance and interference in the possession of the plaintiff
over the disputed property and the defendant No.1 to 3 assured the
plaintiff that in future they will not create any interference in the
ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed property.
Further averred that in the month of March, 2016, defendant No.3 in
collusion with his associates tried to interfere with the possession of the
plaintiffs, so it has become necessary to the plaintiffs to file a suit against
the defendants, during the course of trial, defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra)
created fake agreement dated 21.09.2005 in respect of the suit property
and defendants No.3 and 6 (Suchitra Dubey) conspiring together in the
year 2021 filed the suit for specific performance bearing Civil Suit
No.1137-A/2021 and the suit was decreed on 15.12.2021 and the said
judgment and decree is not binding upon the plaintiffs when defendant
No.3 could not execute the sale deed, defendant No.6 (Suchitra Dubey)
got the sale deed through Court on 25.02.2022 and the said sale deed is
not binding upon the plaintiffs. Thereafter, defendant No.6 made her
efforts to mutate her name in the revenue records and threatening the
plaintiffs to evict them from the suit property. In the above suit, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 5 CR No.225/2024
plaintiff was not a party, hence, said judgment and decree is not binding
upon the plaintiffs since the said property is in the ownership and
possession of the plaintiffs, judgment and decree of the above suit is
ineffective. Defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) never had any right or share
in the disputed property resulting in execution of sale deed dated
25.02.2022 through Court by defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) in his own
favour, defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) executed a sale deed in favour of
Smt.Suchitra Dubey on 26.05.2022 in respect of the suit property.
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants seeking
relief for declaration of title to the suit property, for declaration that
mutation in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and the sale deed bearing
No.478(j) dated 24.05.2006 executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour
of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiffs and the sale deed
executed by defendant No.3 in favour of petitioner / defendant No.6
(Smt.Suchitra Dubey) dated 22.05.2022 is void and is not binding upon
the plaintiffs since the said property is in ownership and possession of the
plaintiffs.
05. After coming to know about the suit filed by the plaintiffs against
the defendants, petitioner / defendant No.6 (Smt.Suchitra Dubey) filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, she
stated that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent
injunction in respect of the land declaring that the property described in
the plaint is of the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs, further
seeking declaration that the mutation entry in the year 1994 in respect of
the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is illegal, further seeking
declaration to declare the said sale deed dated 24.05.2006 executed by
defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 6 CR No.225/2024
illegal and is not binding on the plaintiffs, further seeking declaration that
the mutation entry made in favour of defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) on
the basis of the sale deed dated 24.05.2006 is illegal and for permanent
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants not to interfere
with their ownership and possession of the suit property, further she stated
that the cause of action for such declaration first arose on 14.03.2007
when the plaintiffs received summons from Additional Tehsildar, Indore
in Case No.4-A-27/2006-07 and petitioner / defendant No.6 (Smt.Suchitra
Dubey) sought attention of this Court as per Article 58 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, wherein the declaration of title is prescribed, which is 03 years
inter alia, reckoning when the right to sue first accrues as per the plaint
averments, the limitation reckoned on 14.03.2007, expired on 13.03.2010
as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the present suit has been filed by
the plaintiffs on 11.03.2016 after lapse of 06 years of limitation on the
ground that the plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected, further
averred that the cause of action and relief sought in previous two civil
suits in the year 2007 and 2008 before the learned 10 th Civil judge in Civil
Suit No.184-A/2007 and the learned 9th Additional Judge in Civil Suit
No.4-A/2008, which were dismissed vide order 19.02.2008 and
13.05.2009 respectively, both the previous civil suits were withdrawn on
the strength of respective applications under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC
with liberty to file fresh suit, further averred that plaintiffs filed present
suit on the basis of compromise taken place in Civil Suit No.637-A/1997
in between Mansoor and Aamna Bi and Prem Goyal, whereas said civil
suit has nothing to do with the present suit property and the present suit
property was not the subject matter of the suit. The compromise, if any,
has no relevance. Further averred that plaintiffs are neither possession nor
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 7 CR No.225/2024
have any title over the suit property of the petitioner. On 11.01.2010,
defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) was handed over the possession of the
property in surveys No.69/02, 70/02, 71/02 and 79/02 admeasuring 1.771
hectares and demarcation was taken place. On 29.03.2011, plaintiffs tried
to dispossess the defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra), he filed an application
under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 on
07.06.2011, defendant No.3 was handed over the possession of the
property admeasuring No.1.771 hectares on 25.06.2011. Ever since,
defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) has been in possession of the disputed
property and thereafter, defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) sold the property
to defendant No.6 (Smt.Suchitra Dubey) under registered sale deed dated
25.02.2022 and present suit filed by plaintiffs is barred by limitation,
hence, he prays to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
and reject the plaint.
06. Plaintiffs filed reply to the application filed by petitioner contended
inter alia that issue of limitation raised by defendant is a mixed question
of fact and law, apart from the other issues raised by defendant No.6 are
not worth considering at this stage, further averred that plaint filed by
plaintiff is a well within prescribed by limitation, application has been
presented by defendant on frivolous grounds, further averred that issue of
limitation is based on evidence, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage
and other issues were raised are not considerable under these provisions,
therefore, he prays to dismiss the application filed by petitioner /
defendant No.6 (Smt.Suchitra Dubey).
07. After considering the pleadings and the documents, learned 4 th
District Judge dismissed the petition on 05.07.2022, challenging the order
of the learned trial Court, petitioner filed Civil Revision No.383/2022,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 8 CR No.225/2024
which was disposed of by this Court on 30.06.2023 with an observation
that "the order of the trial Court is set aside and directed the trial Court
to consider the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the
plaintiffs and to reconsider the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
in accordance with law. It is made it clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall
decide both the applications under legal parameters."
08. After remitting the matter to the learned trial Court, learned 4 th
District Judge examined the case on the basis of pleadings and
documents, rejected / dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC filed by the defendant No.6 (Smt.Suchitra Dubey) dated 02.03.2024.
09. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of learned trial
Court dated 02.03.2024, petitioner / defendant No.6 (Smt.Suchitra Dubey)
filed the present Civil Revision No.225/2024 and reiterated the same
facts, which were stated in Civil Revision No.383/2022 before this Court.
10. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival contentions,
considering the entire material on record, dismissed the application filed
by petitioner / defendant No.6 on the ground that question of title can be
decided only by civil Court, further held that the actual cause of action
and relief sought in the case at hand are the subject matter of evidence and
at this stage it cannot be held that the plaintiffs have brought the suit
without any right and for the reasons the cause of action mentioned in the
suit will be decided at the time of disposal of the suit, the question of
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, it would not be proper to
dismiss the suit merely because the plaintiffs have stated the cause of
action in the year 2006-07 and have presented the plaint in the year 2016,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 9 CR No.225/2024
keeping in view the entire pleadings of the plaint, the essence of the plaint
should be taken at the time of trial and it would not be proper to dismiss
the plaint of the plaintiffs by adopting a very technical approach, disputes
between the two parties will be resolved on merits at the time of trial and
accordingly, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by
petitioner - herein / defendant No.6 in the suit Order VII Rule 11 CPC
dated 02.03.2024.
11. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of learned trial
Court, petitioner / defendant No.6 filed the present Civil Revision.
12. Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Devaasheesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
present Civil Revision has been filed by Smt.Suchitra Dubey, challenging
the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was
dismissed by impugned order dated 02.03.2024. Further submitted that
learned trial Court rejected the application with observation that question
of title can be decided only civil Court, further observed that actual cause
of action and the relief sought in the case at hand are subject matter of
evidence and at this stage it cannot be held the plaintiffs brought the case
at hand to the Court without any right and for this reason the plaint of the
plaintiffs cannot be dismissed as time barred. Further submitted that
plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.05.2006, which
was sold by respondents No.4 and 5 / defendants No.1 and 2 (Mansoor
and Aamna Bi) to respondent No.6 / defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra),
further submitted that plaintiff filed a suit in Civil Suit No.184-A/2007 on
06.04.2007 on the basis of cause of action dated 14.03.2007, later said
suit was withdrawn on 19.02.2008 with liberty to file fresh suit. Another
suit in Civil Suit No.4-A/2008 filed on the basis of same cause of action
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 10 CR No.225/2024
dated 14.03.2007, said suit was also withdrawn on 13.05.2009 with
liberty to file fresh suit. Further submitted that present suit filed on
11.03.2016 on the same of cause of action for cancellation of sale deed
dated 24.05.2006, which is clearly barred by limitation, further submitted
that petitioner / defendant No.6 filed application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, said application was dismissed without any valid reasons, said order
was challenged before this Court in Civil Revision No.383/2022, which
was disposed of on 30.06.2023, remand the matter to the learned trial
Court, considering the contentions raised by the petitioner / defendant
No.6 disposed of the petition a fresh. Further submitted that learned trial
Court erred in dismissing the application without considering the legal
aspects seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 24.05.2006, filed a suit in
the year 2016 in Civil Suit No.31-A/2016 after lapse of 06 years, which is
hit by Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribed the
period of limitation for 03 years. Further submitted that Mansoor and Ors.
filed suit in Civil Suit No.637-A/1997 related to the Nipaniya land and
thereafter, they were compromised on 21.01.1998, said compromised
decree is not binding, subject matter of the suit is different. Further
submitted that defendants No.1 and 2 sold the subject property to
defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) on 24.05.2006, his name was mutated in
the revenue records, present suit is filed for declaration to the fact that
said sale deed is not binding on them, subject suit filed on 11.03.2016, it
is a clear case of limitation, suit is filed after lapse of 06 years. Further
submitted that learned trial Court committed error in holding that plaintiff
was not a party to the sale deed, fraud and deceit were committed by the
defendants at the time of execution of sale deed. On coming to know
about the said sale deed, declaratory decree should have been filed within
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 11 CR No.225/2024
a period of 03 years. Further submitted that learned trial Court committed
error that plaintiffs are not the party to the said sale deed as per the
pleadings in the plaint, defendants No.1 and 2 are not the legal heirs of
deceased Ibrahim Patel on the basis of settlement in the previous suits
between two parties, they have sold a part of the disputed land to
defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra). In such situation, plaintiffs are neither
parties to the said sale deed, in such circumstance, Articles 58 and 59 of
the Limitation Act are not applicable. Further submitted that order of the
learned trial Court is erroneous and needs interference by this Court and
he prays to set aside the order of the trial Court and allow the application.
13. Per contra, Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3
submitted that none of the grounds projected by the revision petitioner /
defendant No.6 fall within the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC to
reject the plaint at the threshold, further submitted that while deciding the
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look into
the averments of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint
but not the defence taken by the defendants, further submitted that a plain
reading of the plaint filed by the plaintiff conspicuously discloses the
cause of action, further submitted that it is the prerogative of the plaintiff
to plead the suit and relief under dominus litus. If at all there is any flaw
in framing the suit and the prayer, it is the plaintiff, who suffers and it will
not cause any prejudice to the defendants, further submitted that when
the application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the duty is
cast upon the parties, who file such application to plead and establish their
case within the parameters of the grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule 11
CPC. It is further submitted that issue of limitation is a mixed question of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 12 CR No.225/2024
fact and law and it cannot be decided in an application filed under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC and subject suit is filed within the period of limitation
prescribed by Limitation Act, further submitted that earlier Mansoor and
Aamna Bi filed a suit in Civil Suit No.637-A/1997 against Prem Goyal
and Ors. for declaration in respect of the suit land under sale deed
No.334(b) dated 29.04.1997 and subsequently, they were compromised
and filed compromise memo stating that they are the legal heirs of Wali
Mohammad they are not legal heirs of Ibrahim Patel and therefore, the
very sale deed executed by them in favour of defendant No.3 (Sanjay
Dabra) is questionable whether it is valid or not, it has to be adjudicated
by civil Court, further submitted that Sanjay Dabra sold the property to
defendant No.6 / petitioner - herein, therefore, the present suit filed by
plaintiffs that the said sale deed dated 24.05.2006 said to have been
executed in favour of defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) is not binding upon
the plaintiffs, therefore, Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act are not
attracted to the facts of the present case, further submitted that the present
suit filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the cause of action that defendant
No.3 in connivance of his associates tried to interfere in the possession of
the plaintiff in the month of March, 2016, due to which the plaintiffs have
no option except to file the suit, on the date of commencement of cause of
action filed the present suit, therefore, the suit is maintainable and as
such, the learned Court below rightly dismissed the said application filed
by the petitioner / defendant No.6 and there is no illegality in the
impugned order passed by Court below and he prays to dismiss the
petition.
14. In the light of rival submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the point for determination arises as follows :
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 13 CR No.225/2024
"Whether, the impugned order dated 02.03.2024 in Civil
Suit No.31-A/2016 by learned 4th District Judge, Indore is
legally justified in dismissing the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC or needs any interference by this
Court."
15. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC reads as follows:
"1. 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 comply with the provision 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."
16. In the present case, petitioner / defendant No.6 filed an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC stating that present suit filed by
plaintiffs / respondents No.1 to 3 seeking declaration in respect of land
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 14 CR No.225/2024
situated in survey Nos.69, 70, 71 and 71 at Patwari Halka No.58 Village
Kanadia, Indore admeasuring 5.317 hectares and the relief sought by the
plaintiff to declare the subject property as ownership and possession and
declaration the mutation entries made in the year 1994 in respect of suit
land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 (Mansoor and Aamna Bi) is
illegal, further declared that on the basis of said entry, sale deed dated
24.05.2006 executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant
No.3 is not binding on them, further declared that the mutation entry
made in favour of defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) on the basis of sale
deed dated 24.05.2006 is illegal and for permanent injunction, further the
case of the petitioner is that as per the Article 58 of the Limitation Act,
the limitation to obtain declaration such as declaration of title prescribed,
which is for 03 years, further the case of the petitioner that the limitation
as per the plaint averments itself reckoned on 14.03.2007, expired by
13.03.2010 as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The present suit has
been filed by plaintiff on 11.03.2016 after lapse of 06 years of limitation,
the plaint filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected on the ground of
limitation. Further the case of the petitioner / defendant No.6 is that the
cause of action and the relief sought in previous two suits filed in the year
2007 and 2008 i.e. Civil Suit Nos.320-A/2007 and 4-A/2008, which were
withdrawn on 19.02.2008 and 13.05.2009 on the respective applications
filed by the plaintiffs, in both the suits, the cause of action to seek for
declaration arose in year 2007 itself, both suits are withdrawn with liberty
to file fresh suit, the present suit is filed on 11.03.2016 on the same cause
of action seeking declaration, certainly hit by Article 59 of the Limitation
Act, present suit filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of compromise taken
place in civil suit No.637-A/1997, said civil suit has nothing to do with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 15 CR No.225/2024
the present suit property, the present suit property is not subject matter of
the suit, compromise in between them has no relevance to the present
case. Further the case of the petitioner is that on the basis of sale deed
dated 24.05.2006, further the case of the petitioner is that after sale deed
obtained by defendant No.3 he entered into an agreement of sale with
defendant No.6 (Suchitra Dubey) in respect of disputed property and later
defendant No.6 obtained sale deed through Court, defendant No.6 filed a
suit for specific performance in civil suit No.1137-A/2021 and later got
sale deed through Court with e-registration No. MP179132022A1197430
dated 25.02.2022, the defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) executed a sale
deed in favour of petitioner / defendant No.6 (Suchitra Dubey), the suit
filed by the plaintiff is vexatious and frivolous litigation, petitioner /
defendant No.6 filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC on the ground that the plaintiff filed a suit after lapse of 11 years
from the date of first suit in year 2007-08 as stated (supra) and seeking
declaration that the sale deed dated 24.05.2006 is not binding upon the
plaintiffs, which is beyond limitation, therefore, Articles 58 and 59 of the
Limitation Act applies to the present case and plaint has to be rejected. In
support of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal1, on the point
of vexatious suits has held that :
"5.We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the
petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the Court
repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement
of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is
perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First
Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the
mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif
must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal- reading
1. (1977) 4 SCC 467
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 16 CR No.225/2024
of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should
exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC taking
care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.
And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the
party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is
the answer to irresponsible law suits....."
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited another judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ramti Devi v. Union of India2, in which Para 2 reads as
follows:
"2. The question is whether the suit is within limitation. In
the evidence, it was admitted that she had knowledge of the
execution and registration of the sale-deed on January 29,
1947. Initially a suit was filed in 1959 but was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit. Admittedly, the
present suit was filed on July 30, 1966. The question,
therefore, is whether the suit is within limitation. Article 59
of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, relied on by the
appellant herself, postulates that to cancel or set aside an
instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract, the
limitation is three years and it begins to run when the
plaintiff entitles to have the instrument or the decree
cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become
known to him. As seen, when the appellant had knowledge
of it on January 29, 1949 itself the limitation began to run
from that date and the three years limitation has hopelessly
been barred on the date when the suit was filed. It is
contended by Shri V.M. Tarkunde, learned senior counsel
for the appellant, that the counsel in the trial court was not
right in relying upon Article 59. Article 113 is the relevant
Article. The limitation does not begin to run as the sale-deed
document is void as it was executed to stifle the prosecution.
Since the appellant having been remained in possession, the
only declaration that could be sought and obtained is that she
is the owner and that the document does not bind the
appellant. We are afraid that we cannot agree with the
learned Counsel. As seen, the recitals of the documents
would show that the sale deed was executed for valuable
consideration to discharge pre-existing debts and it is a
registered document. Apart from the prohibition under
Section 92 of the Evidence Act to adduce oral evidence to
contradict the terms of the recital therein, no issue in this
2. (1995) 1 SCC 198
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 17 CR No.225/2024
behalf on the validity of the sale-deed or its binding nature
was raised nor a finding recorded that the sale-deed is void
under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Pleading itself is not
sufficient. Since the appellant is seeking to have the
document avoided or cancelled, necessarily, a declaration
has to be given by the court in that behalf. Until the
document is avoided or cancelled by proper declaration, the
duly registered document remains valid and binds the
parties. So the suit necessarily has to be laid within three
years from the date when the cause of action had occurred.
Since the cause of action had arisen on January 29, 1947, the
date on which the sale-deed was executed and registered and
the suit was filed on July 30, 1966, the suit is hopelessly
barred by limitation. The courts below, therefore, were right
in dismissing the suit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed
with costs.."
18. Another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Md. Noorul
Hoda v. Bibi Raifunnisa & Ors.3 in which Para 6 reads as follows:
"6. It is true that Article 59 would be applicable if a person
affected is a party to a decree or an instrument or a contract.
There is no dispute that Article 59 would apply to set aside
the instrument, decree or contract between the inter se
parties. The question is whether in case of person claiming
title through the party to the decree or instrument or having
knowledge of the instrument or decree or contract and
seeking to avoid the decree by a specific declaration,
whether Article 59 gets attracted? As stated earlier, Article
59 is a general provision. In a suit to set aside or cancel an
instrument, a contract or a decree on the ground of fraud,
Article 59 is attracted. The starting point of limitation is the
date of knowledge of the alleged fraud. When the plaintiff
seeks to establish his title to the property which cannot be
established without avoiding the decree or an instrument that
stands as an insurmountable obstacle in his way which
otherwise binds him, though not a party, the plaintiff
necessarily has to seek a declaration and have that decree,
instrument or contract cancelled or set aside or rescinded.
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 regulates suits
for cancellation of an instrument which lays down that any
person against whom a written instrument is void or
voidable and who has a reasonable apprehension that such
instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury,
can sue to have it adjudged void or voidable and the court
may in its discretion so adjudge it and order it to be
3. (1996) 7 SCC 767
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 18 CR No.225/2024
delivered or cancelled. It would thus be clear that the word
'person' in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is wide
enough to encompass a person seeking derivative title from
his seller. It would, therefore, be clear that if he seeks
avoidance of the instrument, decree or contract and seeks a
declaration to have the decrees set aside or cancelled he is
necessarily bound to lay the suit within three years from the
date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the decree
set aside, first became known to him."
19. Further he cited many of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme in
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead) through
Lrs. and Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 366 and Khatri Hotels Private Limited
and Anr. v. Union of India and Another (2011) 9 SCC 126 and various
other decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court on the same lines.
The aforesaid citations are not much use of the petitioner since the
plaintiff filed a suit taken in many grounds, therefore, above editions
relied upon by the petitioner / defendant No.6 cannot be considered at this
stage.
20. On perusal of the material facts available on record, the plaintiffs/
respondents No.1 to 3 / LRs. filed a suit for declaration of their title of the
suit land and for declaration that the mutation in favour of defendants
No.1 and 2 and the sale deed dated 24.05.2006 executed in favour of
defendant No.3 is not binding upon them and seeks permanent injunction.
Admittedly, the plaintiffs previously filed two suits in the year 2007-08 in
suit Nos.320-A/2007 and 4-A/2008 and both the suits were withdrawn on
19.02.2008 and 13.05.2009 on the strength of respective applications filed
under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC with liberty to file fresh suit and after
withdrawing the earlier suit, he has not filed any suit since he was in
possession of the property, defendants No.1 and 2 (Mansoor and Aamna
Bi) filed suit on 637-A/1997 against Prem Goyal and Ors. with the same
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 19 CR No.225/2024
suit land and in the said suit, they have compromised, in the cause title,
Mansoor and Aamna Bi claiming to be the son and wife of Ibrahim Patel,
but application filed by them for compromise, they are the legal heirs of
Wali Mohammad, they were shown as son and wife of the Wali
Mohammad and compromise recorded by the Court on 21.01.1998 and
thereafter, Mansoor and Aamna Bi sold the property to defendant No.3
(Sanjay Dabra). In view of the compromise decree in between the
Mansoor and Aamna Bi and Prem Goyal they are claiming to be legal
heirs of Wali Mohammad whether the said sale deed executed by them in
favour of defendant No.3 is to be examined by trial Court, the sale deed
dated 24.05.2006 is valid and adjudicated by trial Court and in turn
Sanjay Dabra executed agreement in favour of defendant No.6 (Suchitra
Dubey). In the year 2011, he along his men tried to tresspass to the
subject property by instituting proceedings under Section 250 of the
MPLRC, which was in possession of the plaintiffs, in the month of March
2016, defendant No.3 (Sanjay Dabra) and his associates tried to interfere
in possession of plaintiff, due to which plaintiff filed the suit against the
defendants stating that they have created a fake agreement dated
21.09.2005 and in respect of the said property, defendants No.3 and 5
conspired together and filed a suit for specific performance in civil suit
No.1137-A/2021 they compromised therein on 15.12.2021 after that sale
deed was executed through Court on 25.02.2022, therefore, on perusal of
the plaint, plaintiff has taken many pleas that the Mansoor and Aamna Bi
are not legal heirs of Ibrahim Patel they are the legal heirs of Wali
Mohammad as they themselves mentioned in the compromise memo in
suit No.637-A/1997, which was compromised on 21.01.1998 and
recorded as they are the legal heirs of Wali Mohammad, therefore, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 20 CR No.225/2024
necessary to deduce an evidence by respective parties to prove that
Mansoor and Aamna Bi are the legal heirs of Ibrahim Patel or the Wali
Mohammad, if they were not declared to be the legal heirs of Ibrahim
Patel. The execution of sale deed dated 24.05.2006 is not binding upon
the plaintiffs, therefore, suit filed by the plaintiff is appropriate and it
cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation.
21. It is settled principles of law that the Court is competent to reject a
plaint at any stage of proceedings if it finds that conditions under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC exist. The Court cannot take into account the
materials beyond the plaint to declare the case of the plaintiffs as
frivolous and vexatious. While considering the application filed under
Order VII Ruule 11 of CPC, the Court is not required to take into
consideration the defence set up by the defendant in the written statement.
The question whether the plaint discloses any cause of action is to be
decided by looking at the averments contained in the plaint itself but not
the defence set up by the petitioner / defendant No.6 in the suit. While
examining the said issues, the strength or weakness of the case of the
plaintiff should not be seen. In order to reject the plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to scrutinise the averments / pleas in the
plaint, the pleas taken by the defendants in the petition are wholly
irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. If
the allegations are vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear right
to material(s) to sue, it is the duty of the trial Court to exercise its power
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Merely because the cause of action in
the plaint is vague and incomplete it is not a ground for rejection of the
plaint. It is settled principle of law that there is a difference between non-
disclosure of cause of action or having knowledge from the 2007 by filing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 21 CR No.225/2024
two suits, which were withdrawn in the year 2008-09, from the date
onwards. He has not filed any suit and filed a suit in the year 2016 is not
the criteria and according to the cause of action mentioned in the plaint. In
March 2016 when the defendant No.3 and his associates tried to
dispossess from the subject property, he resisted and filed a suit for
declaration and other reliefs. On the circumstances, the ground for
rejection of the plaint is fairly to disclose the cause of action and not that
there is no cause of action for the suit as stated by the petitioner. It is not
competent for the Court to go into the correctness or otherwise the
allegations and constituting the cause of action and same is beyond the
scope of order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
22. In the present case, the plaintiffs filed a suit No.31-A/2016 on the
cause of action that in the month of March, 2016 attempt to disturb,
dispossess them from their own land and on the basis of the sale deed
dated 24.05.2006 by defendant No.3 and his associates, the present suit is
filed, further on perusal of the plaint that the defendants No.1 and 2
(Mansoor and Aamna Bi) have no right or ownership of the land
relinquished their claims over the land of the plaintiff and executed a sale
deed dated 24.05.2006 in favour of the defendant No.3 without any
authority or ownership. Admittedly, the plaintiffs were not party to the
said sale deed and therefore, the same is non-est and it was executed by
strangers i.e. Mansoor and Aamna Bi, who are the legal heirs of Wali
Mohammad without having a right or ownership over the suit land. They
have executed the sale deed, therefore, they seek relief that the said deed
dated 24.05.2006 is not binding upon the plaintiff and admittedly, number
of pleas are taken by plaintiffs in the plaint has to be decided by civil
Court only.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 22 CR No.225/2024
23. Learned counsel for the respondent cited judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra4 in which Para
9 reads as follows:
"9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the
relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an
application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The
trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint
or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before
the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an
application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7
CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas
taken by the defendant in the written statement would be
wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file
the written statement without deciding the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity
touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court."
24. Another decision relied in Bhukhan Sahu v. Bharat Chandra
Sahu and Ors.5, in which Para 6 to 9 reads as follows:
"6. A voidable transaction requires evidence. Until it is set
aside by a decree of Court, it remains as an impediment. On
the other hand, a void transfer or document is non est,
ineffective and must be deemed never to have taken place.
Then comes the question, when is a document, void or
voidable, where fraud and misrepresentation are alleged in
the execution thereof. There is some nicety of distinction.
Where the fraudulent misrepresentation is alleged as to the
character of the document it is a void one. Where the
fraudulent misrepresentation is as to the contents, it is
avoidable document. (See Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa
Hirekurabar [A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 956.] .)
7. To illustrate, where a particular category of document is
taken (Lease, Sale-deed, deed of relinquishment, deed of
gift, etc.) on the pretext of taking the power-of-attorney,
deed of lease, deed of mortgage, etc., it is a fraud as to the
character of the document. Where a party enters into a
transaction, which he never intended to, there is a fraud as to
the character of the document because "the signature is
invalid not merely on the ground of fraud, where fraud
exists, but on the ground that the mind of the signer did not
accompany the signature; in other words, that he never
4. (2003) 1 SCC 557
5. 1988 SCC OnLIne ORI 187
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 23 CR No.225/2024
intended to sign, and therefore in contemplation of law never
did sign, the contract to which his name is appended He was
deceived as to the legal effect, There being therefore no
execution by him, the document is void.
8. On the other hand, where the schedule of the property is
altered by exercise of fraud, the fraud is as to the contents of
the document and the document is voidable. It gives an
option to the patty to treat the contract as binding or
disaffirm the same. Until it is avoided, the transaction is
void, so that third parties without notice of the fraud may in
the meantime acquire rights and interests in the matter which
they may enforce against the party defrauded.
9.Where a document is void, the party not being obliged to
seek avoidance need not seek the relief for the annulment
thereof by the Court. He may seek reliefs simply ignoring
the document. He may by way of abundant caution seek a
declaration that the document is void. That would not,
however, attract Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Because he
is not seeking the assistance of the Court to avoid a
document, the document is non est...... "
25. Another decision relied upon in Rajeev vs Hariom Kumar6, in
which Para 20 reads as follows:
"20. Therefore, given the stage of the Suit and grounds
raised by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, the
learned Judge was satisfied with appreciation of the record
before him that the grounds are the subject matter of trial
and cannot be allowed to be decided in an application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as, it directly goes into the
merits of the Suit."
26. Another decision relied upon in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy and others
v. P. Neeradha Reddy and others7 the Apex Court observed thus:
"5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is a
drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil
action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the
exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, are
stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the
Court. It is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as
a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or
6. 2023 SCC Online Del 5027.
7. (5) 2015 (3) ALT 14 (SC) = (2015) 8 SCC 331
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 24 CR No.225/2024
whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of
exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the
defendants in the written statement or in the application for
rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the
averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of
action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred
under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other
situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the
course of the trial."
27. Another decision relied in Salim D. Agboatwala v. Shamalji
Oddhavji Thakkar8, in which Para 10 reads as under:
"10. A division Bench of Apex Court speaking through
Hon'ble Shri Justice V. Ramasubramanian made the
following observations as to how to tackle the plea of
limitation in a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC :
"8. Insofar as the rejection of the plaint on the ground of
limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasise that
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. It is the case of
the appellant-plaintiffs that only after making inspection of
the records in connection with the suit land available in the
office of Defendant 3 (Court Receiver) that they came across
the correspondence and documents relating to the
transactions and that the proceedings before ALT were
collusive, fraudulent and null and void. The appellant-
plaintiffs have even questioned the authority of the Court
Receiver to represent them in the tenancy proceedings.
9. -----
10. ----
11. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P.
Neeradha Reddy [P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha
Reddy, (2015) 8 SCC 331 : (2015) 4 SCC (Civ) 100] , the
rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power
conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the
threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise
of the power are stringent and it is especially so when
rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation.
When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the
essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a
particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the
stage of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11.
12. Again as pointed out by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar
[Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, (2018) 6
8 (2021) 17 SCC 100
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 25 CR No.225/2024
SCC 422 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 524] , the plea regarding the
date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential
facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is
barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and
hence the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold."
28. Considering the decisions of the respective parties with regard to
the ownership and title and duly taking into consideration and the
averments made in the plaint, observed that the defendant No.6 /
petitioner failed to file acceptable material to reject the plaint at the
threshold. The contention raised by the petitioner / defendant No.6 are
required to be examined after full-fledged trial, but not at this stage. The
case of the defendants does not fall within the grounds enumerated in
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. While examining the factual aspects, the learned
Court below has given findings in Para 27 has categorically stated that
where the plaintiff was the party to the sale deed and in fraud or deceit etc
was committed by defendants with the plaintiff at the time of execution of
sale deed, then Article 58 of the Act, on coming to know of the sale deed,
any declaratory decree should be filed within a period of three years from
the date of commencement of the first suit.
29. In the present case, the plaintiffs are not party to the said sale deed
as per the pleading made in the plaint and defendants No.1 and 2 are not
the heirs of Ibrahim Patel on the basis of statement in the previous civil
suit between two parties. They have sold a part of the disputed land to
defendant No.3. In such situation, where the plaintiffs are neither the
parties of the registered sale deed and the plaintiffs say that the defendants
No.1 and 2 (Mansoor and Aamna Bi) are the heirs of Wali Mohammad,
then by the said sale deed they were not able to transfer the property of
Ibrahim Patel, at the disputed land of the plaintiff transferred by them
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 26 CR No.225/2024
without any authority and it is void ab initio and there is no need to get it
cancelled under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. In such circumstances,
in the case at hand the Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act are not
applicable to the present facts of this case. However, after filing written
statement by petitioner / defendant No.6 and appropriate issues framed by
trial Court. The issue of limitation one among them should be framed and
decided the suit on merits. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and while deciding a
petition, the Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the context of limitation and when
the concerned plaintiff claims knowledge of essential facts giving rise to
the cause of action at a particular point of time and the cause of action
arose in March, 2016 and the plaintiff filed a suit and the same has to be
accepted, when really plaintiff gained knowledge of essential facts in a
trivial issue and the suit cannot be thrown at threshold.
30. This Court is of the view that the plaint was not liable to be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and affirm the findings of the trial Court.
Now, learned trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with
law on its own merits. However, it is observed that whatever the
observations are made by this Court in the present order shall be confined
to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure
Code only and learned trial Court to finally decide and dispose off the suit
in accordance with law on its own mertis on the basis of evidence led.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that
there is no illegality or infirmities in the impugned order dated 02.03.2024
passed by the learned 4th District Judge warranting interference by this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 27 CR No.225/2024
33. In the result, Civil Revision petition is dismissed and confirmed
the order of the learned trial Court dated 02.03.2024 passed in Civil Suit
No.31-A/2016.
34. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
(Duppala Venkata Ramana, J)
Anushree
