The entirety of the averments in the plaint should be considered, and the issues raised in the matter were required to be considered on merits.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No.354 of 2017.

3. The instant proceedings arise out of an application preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was initially rejected by the Trial Court but came to be allowed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

4. Special Civil Suit No.204/2016 was filed by the appellant in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Surat submitting inter alia that by deception, a sale-deed came to be obtained on 21.03.2008 under which the appellant purportedly sold away his interest in Block 221 at Survey No.91 situated at Village Bhanodara, District Surat, Gujarat. Though the sale-deed was effected, the appellant continued to be in possession of the property. The relevant assertions as regards cause of action and limitation as pleaded in the Suit were as under:

"10. The cause of suit: That, the defendant of this case has executed a sale deed No.5728 of the agriculture land occupied by the plaintiff on dated 21/03/2008, without the knowledge of the plaintiff and in collusion with other person and thereby created false and forged, non-executable sale deed, which affect the plaintiffs right, title and interest. Since than, the cause of action arose for this suit. Further, if the defendant is not prevented to further continue the above transaction, in that case, on the basis of the aforesaid alleged sale deed, further sale-deeds will be continued. Therefore also, it is required to prevent the present defendant.

11. Limitation: The present suit is within limitation, because of out of the knowledge of the plaintiff, by rendering wrong understanding, by way of creating false and forged sale deed No.5728 on dated 21/03/2008 is created in the name of the defendant. Thus, on the basis of this alleged sale-deed, the defendant has made application to post Entry No.1750 in the Revenue Record on dated 15/06/2013, which came to be rejected on dated 30/07/2013. Thus, against this Entry, the present defendant has preferred an appeal being No.362/2013 before Deputy Collector, the notice of that appeal was served to me, and therefore, the plaintiff came to know that, the alleged sale-deed is executed in the land owned by the plaintiff. Therefore, the present suit is filed within limitation as per legal provisions."

5. With the aforesaid averments, the appellant prayed as under:

"2. As the defendant of this case has, out of the knowledge of the plaintiff, created in his name false, non-executable and forged sale deed No.5728 on dated 21/03/2008, which affect the interest of the plaintiff over the land, which is requested to be cancelled. It is requested to declare that it is null and void and the intimation of cancellation of sale-deed may be forwarded to the Sub-registrar office."

6. Pursuant to the application moved by the respondent-original defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the Trial Court considered the issue and by its order dated 07.03.2017 rejected the prayer. In revision arising therefrom, the High Court by its judgment and order, which is presently under appeal, interfered in the matter and held that in terms of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the plaint was required to be rejected. The High Court observed as under:

"16. From overall reading and from consideration of the relevant proposition, it appears that this being a litigation generated after more than a period of 8 years, is clearly hit by law of limitation and as such, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 7.3.2017 passed below Exh.16 in Special Civil Suit No.204 of 2016 is quashed and set aside hereby and accordingly, the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure stands allowed an