Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Nirpat Thakur vs Shri Vijay Patel on 28 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53614
1 CR-1096-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 1096 of 2025
SHRI NIRPAT THAKUR AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI VIJAY PATEL
Appearance:
Shri Piyush Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the
order dated 19.2.2025 passed by XVI Civil Judge Senior Division, Jabalpur
in RCSA No.718/2016, whereby the application filed by the
petitioners/defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the
application has been decided by the Court below without giving opportunity
to the petitioners to address on such application. It is submitted that the
order has been said to be passed at 4:45 p.m., however, he has obtained
certified copy of the order, which shows that the learned Judge has signed
the order at 16:05:29 O'clock, which shows that the order was passed at about
4:00 O'clock and it has been shown that it was passed at 04:45 p.m. The
Counsel for the petitioners was very much present at 4:00 O'clock to address
the court, but the same has been denied on the ground that the order has
already been passed. It is further submitted that the application under Order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53614
2 CR-1096-2025
VII rule 11 CPC has been filed for rejection of the plaint on the ground of
limitation, as from bare perusal of the plaint - Annexure CR/3 in Para 7, the
respondent/plaintiff had averred that during his travel outside Jabalpur some
construction has been raised on the subject matter of the Suit and on
6.7.2016 when he enquired, then he came to know that the construction is
being raised by the petitioners/defendants and on asking them to stop it, the
defendants have refused to do so. Therefore, the cause of action arose in the
matter and on that basis the plaint has been filed.
3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners
that from bare perusal of the averment, the Suit is barred by limitation, as the
respondent/plaintiff himself has averred that the suit land has been
purchased in the year 1998 and from the plain reading of the Paras, nothing
can be inferred that the respondent/plaintiff was in possession from year
1998. It is also not clear, on which date he has been dispossessed and the
construction has been raised on the subject matter of the Suit. Thus, the
plaint is barred by limitation and the court ought to have allowed the
application by rejecting the plaint.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
5. It is evident from the impugned order that the Court below has
decided the application holding that despite several opportunities, the
Counsel for the petitioners/defendants did not advance any argument in
respect of the application submitted under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. To
demonstrate that despite the presence, the Court has not heard the counsel,
no affidavit of the Counsel has been filed along with the petition. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53614
3 CR-1096-2025
seen that the Court has dwelt upon the issue of rejection of the plaint on the
merits of the case relying on the case laws of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and
held that the question of limitation requires factual determination and
enquiry. Consequently, the application has been rejected.
6. It is a trite law that the question of limitation cannot be decided
at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
ofP. Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan & others, 2025 SCC Online SC 975 .
The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 13 and 14 has held as under:-
"13. In this backdrop, the approach of the High Court in reversing
the well-reasoned order of the trial Court warrants interference.
The trial Court had rightly held that the issue of limitation
necessitated adjudication upon evidence, particularly in view of
the appellant's assertion that the Power of Attorney executed by
him did not confer any authority upon his father to alienate the suit
property and that the impugned transaction came to his knowledge
only at a much later point in time. In such circumstances, the
determination of limitation involved disputed questions of fact that
could not be summarily decided without the benefit of trial. The
High Court, however, proceeded to reject the plaint solely on
a prima facie assumption that the suit was barred by limitation,
without undertaking any examination as to whether the plea
regarding the date of knowledge was demonstrably false or
inherently improbable in light of the record. In the opinion of this
Court, such an approach amounts to an error of law and
constitutes a misapplication of the well-established principles
governing the exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
For the same reasons, the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents are inapplicable, being factually
distinguishable.
14. It is also to be noted that the appellant has categorically
averred in the plaint that he executed the registered power of
attorney in favour of his father solely for the limited purpose of
constructing a house and carrying out related activities. There is no
express clause authorizing his father to sell the suit property to any
person without the appellant's consent and knowledge. Yet, the
appellant's father executed a sale deed in favour of his
granddaughter, going beyond the scope of the power of attorney,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53614
4 CR-1096-2025
which raises serious doubt about misuse of authority and potential
fraud. Such assertions cannot be rejected in the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, we are of the view that the
plaint discloses a cause of action which cannot be shut out at the
threshold. Thus, the trial Court acted within its jurisdiction in
refusing to reject the plaint and in holding that the matter ought to
proceed to trial. The High Court, while exercising its revisional
jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, ought not to have interfered
in the absence of any jurisdictional error or perversity in the trial
court's order. Rejecting the plaint where substantial factual
disputes exist concerning limitation and the scope of authority
under the Power of Attorney, is legally unsustainable."
7. It is apparent from the averments of the plaint that the
respondent/plaintiff has averred cause of action and date of knowledge of
the encroachment and construction over the subject matter of the Suit, which
cannot be thrown away only on the argument advanced by the Counsel for
the petitioners that the respondent/plaintiff has not been in possession from
year 1998 and therefore, it is barred by law. The question of limitation being
a mixed question of fact and law requires adjudication by the Court below
after due enquiry and evidence as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of
Judgments. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the order
passed by the Court below is on merits, and holding that such question
cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has not
committed any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, which
can call for interference under revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of
CPC. In regard to contention that the petitioners were not heard, this Court
is of the opinion that as the application and the argument raised by the
petitioners restricted to the question of limitation was decided in accordance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53614
5 CR-1096-2025
with law by the Court below, therefore, there is no point in giving
opportunity to the petitioners to again raise same question before the Court
below by remanding the matter to the Court to decide afresh, as this Court
has decided the application on merits. Therefore, the matter is not required
to be remanded back.
8. Therefore, the Revision Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
nd
