The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a meaningful reading of the plaint, scrutiny of the cause of action, and prevention of illusory causes of action to avoid circumventing limitation provisions under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

ORDER :

1. The present applicant is the original defendant No.18 in Regular Civil Suit No.22/2023 which is pending in the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aurangabad i.e. the learned trial Court. The applicant has challenged the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned trial Court below Exh.20 in the aforesaid civil suit whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by present applicant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “C.P.C.”) for rejection of plaint.

2. The background facts are as under :

Present respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the original plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 22/2023 and they have filed the said suit for partition, separate possession, declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs have claimed relief of partition in respect of the suit property i.e. land Gut No. 145 admeasuring 2 H 61 R situated at village Mitmita, Taluka and District Aurangabad amongst themselves only and not against any of the defendants. Further, they have claimed relief of declaration in respect of in all 22 sale deeds of the suit land being sham and illegal documents and not binding upon them. According to them, the four sale deeds dated 03.08.1990 out of aforesaid sale deeds executed by late Asaram Mhaske in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 17 were without consideration and without transfer of actual possession. The plaintiffs have claimed that defendant Nos.1 to 17 had got executed the aforesaid four sale deeds by mis-representing and by playing fraud with their predecessor in title Asaram Shamrao Mhaske. They claimed that they are still in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs have also challenged the subsequent transfers of the suit land under remaining sale deeds after execution of the aforesaid four sale deeds of 1990.

3. The present applicant i.e. defendant No.18 filed application (Exh.20) under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint alleging that suit of the plaintiffs is without any cause of action and since the plaintiffs have sought declaration in respect of four sale deeds executed by Asaram Mhaske in the year 1990 being illegal and not binding upon them in the year 2023 i.e. after 33 years, the suit is clearly barred by Limitation Act.

4. The plaintiffs had resisted the said application by filing say at Exh.22 before the learned Trial Court alleging that they have clearly mentioned the cause of action in the plaint itself and the same is continuous one since it is a suit for partition and separate possession. According to them, the point of limitation is mixed question of law and facts, and therefore, unless and until evidence of both parties is recorded, the plaint cannot be rejected on that aspect.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant reiterated the contents of application (Exh.20) filed before the learned trial Court and submitted that this is a case of crafty drafting by giving illusory cause of action. Moreover, plaintiffs were well aware about the sale deeds well in advance and prior to three years of filing of this suit, and therefore, their claim for declaring the sale deeds of 1990 being illegal and void, is hopelessly time barred. He relied on the following judgments :

(i) Frost International Limited vs Milan Developers and Builders Private Limited and another, (2002) 8 SCC 633

(ii) Dilboo (Smt) (Dead) :By LRS & others vs Dhanraji (Smt) (Dead) & others, (2000) 7 SCC 702

(iii) Judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5819-5822 of 2021 (Rajendra Bajoria & ors vs Hemant Kumar Jalan & others)

(iv) Judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2960 of 2019 (Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh)

(v) Shri Jayantilal Devji Shah vs Mangesh Dasrath Gaikar 2018 (2) IR Bom.R 147

(vi) Naginchand s/o Devichand Buccha vs Vinod s/o Tarachand and others, 2018 (1) Mh.L.J. 433

(vii) Gaurav s/o Balmukund & ors vs Tukaram Pandurang Dhagekar (since dead) through his Lrs Smt. Vimalbai Tukaram Dhagekar & ors, 2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 709

(viii) Judgmento f this Court in CRA No