[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shyam Tiwari vs M/S Ambit Navnirman Pvt. Ltd. Through ... on 15 April, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

1 C.R. No.1303/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2026

CIVIL REVISION No. 1303 of 2025

SHYAM TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S AMBIT NAVNIRMAN PVT. LTD. THROUGH AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY SHRI AKSHAY KUMAR AND OTHERS
...................................................................................
Appearance:-
Shri Vinay Kumar Zelawat - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Aashay

Dubey - Advocate for the applicants.

Shri Manish Sankhla - Government Advocate for the respondent No.

4/State.

........................................................................................................

ORDER

This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (for short, hereinafter will be referred to as 'CPC') has been preferred

against impugned order 08.11.2025 (Annexure A/1) in regular civil suit bearing

number RCS-A/1208/2019 passed by learned XVIII Civil Judge Senior

Divsion, Indore District Indore (MP) on an application under Order VII Rule 11

of the CPC for rejecting the plaint, whereby the same has been dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

02. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/company registered under

the Companies Act has filed a suit for declaration that registered sale deed

dated 10.03.1981 (Annexure A/6), sale deed dated 03.01.2003 (Annexure A/7),

sale deed dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure A/8), sale deed dated 30.03.2015

(Annexure A/9), sale deed dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure A/10) and sale deed

dated 01.10.2014 (Annexure A/11) are not binding on the respondent/plaintiff

and defendants/respondents herein do not get any title of the disputed property

over the suit lands, therefore, their possession over the aforesaid lands is legal

and plaintiffs are entitled for recovering possession from the defendants.

Further relief of injunction is also claimed that defendants be restrained from

transferring or executing any agreement or creating any encumbrance or

changing the nature of the suit lands bearing survey No. 989/1/1, part Rakba

0.065 hectare i.e. 7000 square feet, survey No. 989/1/1, part Rakba 0.074

hectare i.e. 8000 square feet and survey No. 989/1/1 part rakba 0.139 hectare

i.e. 15000 square feet, total area 0.278 hectare i.e. 30000 square feet situated at

Tehsil and District Indore. Plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 herein has averred

in the plaint that he has purchased the suit land through registered sale deed No.

873 dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure A/1), sale deed No. 2096 dated 31.03.2009

(Annexure A/2) and sale deed No. 47 dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure A/3). It is

further alleged that original owners of the disputed lands were other persons

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

including Didarsingh S/o Parmeshwar Singh, seller to the plaintiff. After

purchasing lands vide order dated 17.10.1985 passed in Revenue Case No. 1/v-

3/1985-86, the partition was effected. Diarsingh S/o Parmeshwar Singh got

total 5 survey numbers, Rakba admeasuring 1.376 hectare. The said partition

has not been questioned before any Court. In the revenue records, plaintiff's

name is recorded as land owner. Defendants/petitioners before this Court have

alleged their possession over the disputed property. When plaintiff had a

conversation with the petitioners in this regard, it came to his knowledge that in

the year 1981, Smt. Ravinder Kaur and Mahinder Kaur has executed a sale

deed, but both of them were not having any right to transfer the property. In

1981, deceased Sharad Tiwari has unauthorizedly purchased the land and

thereby he did not get any right over the property. After coming into knowledge

of the plaintiff, he filed the aforesaid Civil Suit for the reliefs as mentioned

herein above. After filing of the Civil Suit, the petitioners/defendants No. 2 to 7

filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC on

10.08.2023 for rejecting the plaint inter alia on the ground that the suit is barred

by limitation. The application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent and the

same has been rejected by impugned order dated 08.11.2025 which is under

challenge in this revision.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

03. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that order passed by the

Court below is cryptic laconic and is not a speaking order supported by any

reasons. Factual aspects have not been considered by the learned trial Court

while passing the impugned order. Civil Suit has been filed for declaring the

sale deed dated 10.03.1981 as null and void after 38 years of execution of the

sale deed which is apparently barred by limitation. Learned counsel further

submits that learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the averments

made by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in his plaint in relation to cause of

action. Learned Court below has failed to consider the fact that order passed by

the Sub-Divisional Officer was in the year 2016 and not in the year 2018.

Wrong facts have been taken into account to dismiss the application filed by the

petitioner.

3.1. Learned counsel for the applicants by relying upon para 30 of the

judgment passed by the Apex Court in Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr.

Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 126 submits that civil suit is

apparently barred which is visible from the plaint allegation itself. On these

miscellaneous contentions, learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned

order by allowing this revision and also allowing the application filed under

Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC and directing for rejection of the plaint as

barred by limitation.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

04. None appeared even after service of the notice from the

respondent(s) side.

05. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel

and perused the record.

06. It is not res integra that only plaint allegations and documents filed

along with the plaint are to be seen for deciding the application filed under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC as held by the Apex Court in case of Kamala & Ors.

vs. KT Eshwara, SA and Ors (2008)12 SCC 661. Similar view has also been

taken by the Apex Court in case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra

(2003) 1 SCC 557. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid, this Court will go through

the pleadings in the plaint and documents filed therein to ascertain whether the

plaint allegations and documents filed therein reveal that the suit is barred by

law of limitation or any other law.

07. It is not in dispute that registered sale deed dated 10.03.1981

(Annexure A/6) was executed near about 38 years before filing of the civil suit

on 25.11.2019. Other sale deeds dated 03.01.2003 (Annexure A/7), sale deed

dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure A/8), sale deed dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure A/9),

sale deed dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure A/10) and sale deed dated 01.10.2014

(Annexure A/11) which are under challenge have also been executed more than

3 years before filing of this Civil Suit No. RCS-A/1208/2019.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

08. As per provisions contained in Article 58 of the Limitation Act, a

suit for declaration must be filed within a period of three years from the date

when the right to sue first accrues. Similarly, in Article 59 of the Limitation

Act, same period of limitation of three years has been mentioned. Both the

provisions are extracted as under:-

58 To obtain any other declaration. Three years. When the right to sue first accrues.

59 To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree Three years. When the facts entitling the plaintiff or for the rescission of a contract. to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.

09. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that

Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a suit to obtain any declaration

must be instituted within three years from the date when the right to sue first

accrues. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Khatri Hotels Private Limited (supra) has

held that the use of the word `first' has been used 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 the 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 day when the right to sue first

accrued.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

10. In the instant case, oldest sale deed under challenge was executed

on 10.03.1981 and latest sale deed under challenge was executed on 27.04.2015

among other sale deeds which are under challenge. Civil suit in the instant case

has been filed on 25.11.2019 after expiry of 38 years of the latest sale deed

executed in the year 1991 much later than period of three years prescribed for

challenging the same. This is apparent from the plaintiff's own averments of

the plaint and requires no evidence for its determination.

11. Respondent No.1/Plaintiff has drafted plaint Annexure A/2 very

cleverly to create illusion of cause of action and to suppress the real date of

knowledge of the sale deeds which he wants to get annulled. From perusal of

para-5 of the plaint, it is clear that plaintiff has averred with regard to the

possession over the disputed suit lands, he had a conversation with the

applicants and came to know about the fact that in the year 1981 sale deed has

been got executed from Smt. Ravinder Kaur and Mahinder Kaur, but no date of

knowledge of the execution of the aforesaid sale deed has been mentioned.

Even in para 11 of the plaint where cause of action has been shown to have

arisen on 04.02.2018 based on obtaining of certified copies of revenue record,

but it has not been mentioned that what was the occasion to obtain certified

copies of revenue records on 04.02.2018 and when they were actually delivered

to him. It was relevant to ascertain whether the suit has been filed within the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

period of limitation, but the aforesaid fact has been suppressed deliberately.

Thus, suit filed by the plaintiff for getting annulled the sale deeds mentioned in

the relief clause is time barred from the plaint allegations itself, as it is proved

that suit has been filed beyond 3 years when the first cause of action accrued.

All the sale deeds which are under challenge in the instant case are registered

sale deeds are in public domain and are supposed to be in the knowledge public

in general from the date of their registration.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate

Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 has held that the basic question to be decided while

dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether

a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory

has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. In case

of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 : 1977 SCC OnLine

SC 286 at page 470 also the Apex has emphasized that irresponsible law suits

should be nipped in bud. Relevant paragraph 5 runs as under:-

"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently 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 of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, 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. The trial courts would 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, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:

"It is dangerous to be too good."

13. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered

view that cause of action stated in entire plaint is not real, but it is illusory

cause of action which is the result of clever drafting only. Plaintiffs/respondents

No. 1 to 3 have not substantiated the pleadings with any supportive document

even to prima facie satisfy the Court that they have any real cause of action for

filing the aforesaid suit. In para 23.6 of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji

Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC

366, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is duty cast on the Court while

adjudicating the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to determine

whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in

the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the

suit is barred by any law. Similarly In the matter of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs

Charity Commr reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 Hon'ble Apex Court has held

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal

reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not

disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule

11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.

If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped

in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order

10 of the Code.

14. If the suit filed by the plaintiff is allowed to continue it will

definitely be a wastage of valuable judicial time. Hon'ble Apex Court in the

matter of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1986 AIR 1253 has

observed the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to

ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive,

should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following

words :

"12. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

15. In view of Article 58 & 59 of Schedule appended to Limitation

Act, 1963 and in conjunction with meaningful reading of the plaint averments

and the documents filed therewith, this Court is of the considered view that

plaint does not disclose any real cause of action and the suit is manifestly

barred by limitation.

16. It is no inflexible rule that the point of limitation is always a mixed

question of fact and law and plaint cannot be rejected. Where bar of limitation

is clearly and undisputedly ascertainable from the averments of the plaint as in

the instant case, the same can be rejected. In the case of much celebrated

judgment passed by the Apex Court in Dahiben (supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court rejected the plaint on the ground as it was clearly made out from the

averments of the plaint that it is barred by limitation.

17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State

of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 has held that registration of a document

provides a complete account of transaction to any party interested in the

property. The Apex Court held as under:-

"15. ... „17. ... Registration of a document [when it is required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered instrument] [Ed. : Section 3 Explanation I TPA, reads as follows:"S. 3 Expln. I--Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration...."(emphasis supplied)]] gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed.

18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.‟ [Ed. : As observed in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (1) v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363, pp. 367-68, paras 17-18.] "

18. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that

plaintiff had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1981). Revenue

proceedings orders passed by Revenue Officers are also available in the public

domain and they are also well within the knowledge of the parties.

19. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that suit filed by the

plaintiff is clearly barred by limitation, but the learned trial Court has neither

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10372

appreciated the facts nor applied law and by cryptic order, contention raised on

behalf of the applicants has been repelled. Such mechanical order is of no value

in the teeth of factual matrix of this case. This Court is of the considered view

that learned trial Court has committed grave error in dismissing the application

filed under 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the applicants.

20. Resultantly, this Civil Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated

08.11.2025 passed by learned XVIII Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore is set

aside. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the

applicants/defendants No. 2 to 7 is hereby allowed which results in dismissal of

the suit filed by the plaintiff.