[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjeet Singh vs Upendra Kumar on 27 January, 2026
1 CR-174-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
CIVIL REVISION No. 119 of 2025
RANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
UPEDNRA KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A. K. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sandeep
Kochatta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Tarun Pagare, learned Government Advocate for the respondent /
State.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION No. 173 of 2025
RANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
UPENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A. K. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sandeep
Kochatta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Tarun Pagare, learned Government Advocate for the respondent /
State.
CIVIL REVISION No. 174 of 2025
RANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 27-01-2026
18:21:24
2 CR-174-2025
Versus
UPENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A. K. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sandeep
Kochatta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Tarun Pagare, learned Government Advocate for the respondent /
State.
HEARD ON : 27.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2026
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
CIVIL REVISION NO.119 of 2025
The petitioners before this Court have filed the present revision under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the
order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the Court of
Ist Civil Judge, Class - I, Tarana, District - Ujjain in RCSA No.131A/2023,
whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been
rejected.
CIVIL REVISION NO.173 of 2025
02. The petitioners before this Court have filed the present revision
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by
the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the Court
of Ist Civil Judge, Class - I, Tarana, District - Ujjain in RCSA
No.128A/2023, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the
3 CR-174-2025
CPC has been rejected.
CIVIL REVISION NO.174 of 2025
03. The petitioners before this Court have filed the present revision
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by
the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the Court
of Ist Civil Judge, Class - I, Tarana, District - Ujjain in RCSA
No.133A/2023, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC has been rejected.
04. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in
these civil revisions, with the joint request of the parties, these revisions are
analogously heard and being decided by this common order.
FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF
05. Respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a civil suit i.e. Civil Suit
No.131A/2023 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect
of the property bearing Survey No.143 area 2.460 hectare, Patwari Halka
No.13 (old No.72) situated at Tehsil - Tarana, District - Ujjain. Furthermore,
the plaintiff has sought relief that mutation proceedings in terms of order
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in Case No.56/Appeal/21-22 be
declared as null and void. Relief to the extent that sale deed executed by
defendants No.3 & 4 in favour of defendant No.5 and subsequent sale by
defendant No.5 in favour of defendants No.6 & 7 be declared as null and
void was also sought.
5.1. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 & 2 are the real brother. In
the year 1972, defendant No.1 filed Civil Suit No.34A/1972 seeking his
4 CR-174-2025
share in the ancestral property, which was decreed on a compromise and he
has received agricultural land admeasuring 11.34 hectare. However, the land
allotted to defendant No.1 is not the part of subject property.
5.2. After the death of Shri Pratap Singh Nigam on 15.03.1986,
names of three sons i.e. Ranjeet Singh, Upendra Kumar & Jitendra along
with deceased's wife namely Smt. Chandrakanta Bai @ Chanda Bai were
mutated in the revenue records. It is pleaded in the plaint that defendant No.1
hatched a conspiracy against the plaintiff to get the suit property partitioned
in the Revenue Case No.15/1-27/2001-01. Further, forged affidavit regarding
no objection of Chandrakanta Bai and false signature of plaintiffs, defendant
No.1 & 2 were used before the competent authority to secure an order dated
19.01.2001 to get the suit property partitioned. Thereafter, the name of
defendant No.4 as minor through his mother and natural guardian was
mutated over the same.
5.3. It has been pleaded in paragraph - 14 of the plaint that a portion
of the suit property area 0.410 hectare (1600 sq.ft.) was sold by defendant
No.4 to defendant No. 5 for a sale consideration of Rs.23,91,000/-. It is also
averred that defendant No.5 sold a part of the land area 0.0049 hectare
(portion of suit property purchased by him) to defendants No.6 & 7 on
04.07.2023 for a sale consideration of Rs.13,08,075/-. Changes in the
revenue record have also been made.
5.4. In C.R. No.173 of 2025, it has been stated that the suit property
admeasuring 0.0650 hectare was sold by defendant No.4 to defendant No.5
for sale consideration of Rs.23,91,000/-. It is also averred in the plaint that
5 CR-174-2025
defendant No.5 sold 0.011 hectare land out of 0.0650 hectare to defendants
No.6 & 7 on 04.07.2023 for a sale consideration of Rs.11,89,075/-.
5.5. In C.R. No.174 of 2025, it has been stated that a portion of the
suit property area 1.985 hectare was sold by defendant No.3 & 4 to
defendant No.5 & 6 for a sale consideration of Rs.94,47,200/-. It is averred
in the plaint that defendant No.1 was involved in the aforementioned sale to
defendant No.5 & 6. Changes were also made in the revenue record.
5.6. It was further pleaded in the plaint that Civil Suit No.89A/2009
filed by defendant No.1 for partition of ancestral property excluding suit
property was dismissed by vide judgment dated 25.11.2011. Thereafter,
defendant No.1 filed first appeal before the Xth Additional District Judge,
Ujjain which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2013.
Thereafter, multiple proceedings took place between the parties which gave
cause of action to the plaintiff to file the present suit.
5.7. Defendants No.1, 3 & 4, after receipt of summons, filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w section 151 of the CPC for rejection
of plaint claiming that main basis of the suit is the original compromise
decree dated 06.05.1972 and the suit has been filed after a lapse of 49 years.
5.8. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a reply to the aforesaid application
opposing the averments / ground mentioned therein. Vide order dated
18.12.2024, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC came
to be rejected. Hence, the present Civil Revision is before this Court.
SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES
06. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
6 CR-174-2025
learned trial Court has filed to consider the bar of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC
disallowing filing of multiple suit on the same cause of action. The plaintiff,
in violence of the said provisions, filed three civil suits i.e. RCSA
Nos.128A/2023, 131/2023 & 133/2023 with respect to the same property. It
is further submitted that the trial Court has neither given a meaningful
reading to the plaint nor considered the relief claimed which is vexatious and
meritless, as the same does not disclose right to sue or any cause of action.
To buttress the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon a
judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of T. Arvindandam v/s
T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 .
6.1. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that it is settled position
of law that while scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is duty of the trial Court
to prima facie ascertain the existence of any material giving cause of action.
The learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in holding that
cause of action is disclosed in the plaint with respect to the suit property. It is
submitted that no right, title or interest can ever be said to have accrued to
the plaintiffs as per the plaint averments, thus, no suit for declaration and
permanent injunction is sustainable. To bolster the said submission, reliance
has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Church of Christ
Charitable Trust v/s Poniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC
6.2. Learned Senior Counsel has contended that the learned trial
Court has erred in rejection the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC as the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. As per the plaint
7 CR-174-2025
averments and documents annexed therewith, no cause of action survives
after expiry of three years from the date of fard batwara which is
undisputedly made on 19.03.2001. It is argued that the learned trial Court has
not taken into consideration any submissions made by defendants No.1, 3 &
4 while considering the said application. The judgment cited by the
defendants has not been dealt with while passing the order impugned. Hence,
the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.
6.3. To prop up the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel
has placed reliance upon several judgments delivered in the cases of
Rajendra Rajoria & Others v/s Hemant Kumar Jalan & Others reported in
(2022) 12 SCC 641, Anathula Sudhakar v/s P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs.
& Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 , Thimmiah v/s Shabira & Others
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 182 , Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Others v/s
Ramakant Eknath Jadoo reported in (2009) 5 SCC 713, Union of India v/s
Ibrahim Uddin & Another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 , Hardesh Ores (P)
Limited v/s Hede & Company reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614 , Shankar v/s
Radha Bai reported in 2015 (1) M.P.L.J. 385, Indian Evangelical Lutheran
Church Trust Association v/s Sri Bala & Co. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 48, N.V. Srinivasa Murthy & Others v/s Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposes
LRs. & Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 548 , Sudhirdas v/s United Church
of D Canada India, Dhar Beneficiary & Others reported in 2019 SCC
OnLine MP 1132 and Ashok Kumar Gehani & Others v/s Ramhet Agrawal
& Others reported in 2008 (1) M.P.L.J. 116 .
07. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / plaintiff has
8 CR-174-2025
argued in support of the order impugned and prayed for dismissal of the
revision. Reliance has been placed upon several judgments delivered in the
cases of Chhotanben & Another v/s Kirit Bhai Jalkrushna Bhai Thakkar &
Others reported in (2018) 6 SCC 422 , Sarlalpal Kaur Anand v/s Praduman
Singh Chandhok & Others reported in (2022) 8 SCC 401 , Daya Singh &
Others v/s Gurudev Singh Through LRs. reported in (2010) AIR SCW 689
and Akeela Bee v/s Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board, Bhopal & Others (Civil
Revision No.622 of 2022).
08. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record.
APPRECIATION
09. To disentangle the controversy involved in this case, it would be
appropriate to take the prop of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. For ready
reference, the same is reproduced below:-
''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 by 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, failed 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 prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for
9 CR-174-2025
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 great injustice to the plaintiff."
10. Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC acts as a critical gatekeeper in
civil litigation, empowering Courts to reject a plaint at the threshold if the
suit is "barred by any law" based solely on its own averments.
11. A plain reading of the plaint reveals that in the present case, the
question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact (e.g., involving
disputes on the date of accrual of cause of action, knowledge of facts, or
acknowledgment), the same cannot be decided summarily under Order 7
Rule 11 of the CPC. This principle has been consistently upheld by the Apex
Court in catena of judgments including:-
* P. K. Kumarakurubaran V. P. Narayanan (2025 INSC 598), where
it was held that when limitation involves disputed facts or the date of
knowledge is specifically pleaded, it becomes a mixed question
requiring trial, and rejection at the threshold is unsustainable.
* Saleem Bhai V. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557,
reiterating that rejection under Order 7 Rule of 11 must be based
solely on plaint averments.
* Dahiben V. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366,
affirming that rejection is permissible only if the plaint is manifestly
vexatious or barred ex facie.
12. Perusal of the plaint depicts that the cause of action arose due to
the illegal and void partition order passed in Case No.15/A-27/2000-01
concerning the land based on which defendant No.1 got the names of
defendants No.1 & 4 mutated on 09.02.2001. Subsequently, the Tehsildar,
Ujjain removed the names of defendants No.3 & 4 by the mutation order
dated 02.12.2021. The plaintiff challenged the said order by filing an appeal
and vide order dated 10.01.2022, the mutation order was cancelled.
10 CR-174-2025
Thereafter, the suit land in question was sold to defendant No.5 on
17.05.2022. The cause of action further arose as defendant No.5 sold
different part of the land in question to defendants No.6 & 7 attempting to
grant possession to other individuals, meaning thereby, challenging the
plaintiff's title to the said land. However, these aspects have not been dealt
with by the trial Court while passing the order impugned.
13. In light of the judgments delivered in the cases of Rajendra
Rajopria, Anathula Sudhakar , Thimmia, Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain ,
Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, Ibrahim Uddin, Hardesh Ores (P) Limited ,
Shankar, Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association , N.V.
Srinivasa Muathy, Sudhirdas, Ashok Kumar Gehani, Chhotanben, Sarlalpal
Kaur Anand, Saya Singh & Ankeela Bee (supras) , it is clear that in the
present case there is an objection regarding the improper valuation of the suit
and the fact that the suit is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act. According to the defendants, the suit is time-barred, but his point
has not been has not been dealt with in detail by the trial Court in the
impugned order.
CONCLUSION
14. In view of the above, the impugned order(s) dated 18.12.2024 in
all the three cases is / are hereby set aside. These matters are remitted back to
the trial Court for fresh adjudication of the applications under Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC by a detailed and speaking order. The said order must be
taken to its logical end in accordance with law.
15. With the aforesaid, Civil Revisions stand allowed in part. There
11 CR-174-2025
shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
Let a signed copy of this order be kept in C.R. No.119 of 2025
and copy thereof be kept in the connected revisions.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Ravi
