ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The petitioners, who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No.101/2019, are challenging the order passed by the Trial Court wherein the application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 was rejected.

2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit, O.S.No.101/2019, seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 16.01.2006. The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. Upon receiving notice, the defendants appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, contending that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The plaintiff opposed the application by filing objections, contending that the suit was not barred by limitation. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court rejected the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11(d), aggrieved by which the defendants filed this revision petition.

5. Sri K.G. Raghavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, advanced the following submissions:

1) The respondent-plaintiff was fully aware of the defendants' denial of his title to the suit property in the earlier suit, O.S.No.2122/2006, which was filed by petitioner- defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for permanent injunction. In that suit, the respondent-plaintiff was arrayed as defendant No.14, while defendant Nos. 1 to 13 were the alleged vendors of the suit property. This fact is apparent from paragraph 10 of the plaint in O.S.No.101/2019, wherein the plaintiff unequivocally admits that he became aware of the suit O.S.No.2122/2006, which had been filed by the petitioner-defendants seeking a bare injunction against the respondent-plaintiff and the erstwhile owners in respect of the very same suit property.

2) The cause of action for filing the present suit arose when the respondent-plaintiff entered an appearance in O.S.No.2122/2006. Consequently, the present suit, O.S.No.101/2019, filed after a lapse of more than 13 years from the date of the cause of action, is clearly barred by limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . Therefore, in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC , the plaint is liable to be rejected for being time-barred. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the undeniable fact that the suit was filed after the statutory period of limitation had expired, and as such, the order impugned is unsustainable in law.

3) In support, reliance is placed on the following decisions:

i) Ishwar Ganapati Kyasti and Others vs Gurulingappa Bashettappa Kyasti and others - MANU/KA/0484/2000 .

ii) Khatri Hotels Private Ltd and Another vs Union of India and another - MANU/SC/1054/2011 .

iii) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd vs The Central Bank of India and others - MANU/SC/0468/2020 .

iv) Raghavendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by LR's - MANU/SC/0367/2019 .

v) Ashok B. Hottin vs Mr E John Peter and others - MANU/KA/4171/2019 .

vi) Hardesh Ores Private Ltd vs M/S Hede & Co. Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Private Ltd- MANU/SC/7671/2007 .

vii) Saleem Bhai and Ors. -vs- State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2003) (1) SCC 557.

viii) I.T.C. Ltd. -vs- Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors. 1998 (2) SCC 70.

6. In response, Sri Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff's counsel, contended that the properties mentioned in the schedule to the suit in O.S.No.2122/2006 and in O.S.No.101/2019 are distinct and separate, as is evident from the boundaries described therein. This fact was duly noted by this Court in its order passed in MFA No.4743/2019. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent-plaintiff is claiming rights over the same property that was the subject matter of O.S.No.2122/2006 is a matter that requires determination after the completion of a