The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Neeraj Khandewale for the applicant and learned Counsel Mrs. Shabana M. Khan for the non-applicant.

2. Rule

3. By this Civil Revision Application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 19.10 .2023 passed below Exhibit 11in RCS No.1/2023 by the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Seloo, rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint.

4. The relevant necessary facts for disposal of the revision application are as under:

The non-applicant is the original plaintiff who filed RCS No.1/2023 for declaration, partition and separate possession with a contention that he is the owner of suit property Field Survey No.518 admeasuring 1 H. 21 R. bounded as towards East – field of Yeshwant Badge, towards West - field of Pramod Dnyaneshwar Deotale, towards North - field of Vasanta Narayan Shirse and towards South - field of Madanmohan Dattatraya Deshpande. The defendant according to the pleading is having illegal money lending business and used to give loan on interest to the needy person and the plaintiff sometimes was in a dire need of money, and he obtained hand loan of Rs.70,000/- and defendant (present applicant) obtained the signed blank stamp paper from him for security of loan purpose. As per the allegation, the present applicant misused the said stamp and shown that sale deed executed in his favour by the present non-applicant on 21.06.2016 on consideration of Rs.3,69,000/-, in fact, the applicant gave the loan amount of Rs.70,000/- and shown the document of sale deed against the said loan. In fact, the plaintiff is illiterate person and by taking disadvantage of the same, he misused the blank signed stamp paper and without knowledge of the plaintiff, shown that plaintiff has executed the sale deed in his favour. In the year 2019, when the plaintiff was cultivating the suit field, the defendant in person entered in the suit field and trying to take the possession of the suit field. But the plaintiff obstructed to the defendant and plaintiff also refused to handover the possession of the said suit field. The said sale deed executed fraudulently by the defendant in his favour.

5. Thereafter, the defendant had filed the Revenue Case LND/30-19/2020-21 before the Tahsildar for obtaining the possession of the suit field on the basis of the alleged fraudulent sale deed. The Tahsildar, Seloo passed order under Section 145 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has challenged the said order dated 11.08.2020 vide R.T.S. No.68/LND-30/2020-21. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Wardha admitted the appeal and remanded the matter before the Mamlatdar Court at Seloo for further adjudication. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the defendant preferred an appeal to the Mamlatdar Court, Seloo R.T.S. 29/2021-2022 on 13.05.2022. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar Court, Seloo on 13.05.2022 the plaintiff preferred the Revenue Appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Wardha vide R.A. No.109/MCA-5/2022. The plaintiff also took written objection before Tahsildar on 07.07.2022, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Wardha and further sent the notice to the defendant on 11.07.2020 and informed that the alleged sale deed is not binding upon him as it is not executed by him. As per contention of the plaintiff, the alleged sale deed is illegal and bad in law. Thus, as per the plaintiff, the cause of action to file the suit arose on 21.06.2016 when the defendant got executed the alleged sale deed in his favour from the plaintiff without paying any consideration to the plaintiff and therefore, he constrains to file the suit for declaration and separate possession.

6. In response to the suit summons, defendant appeared and filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) on the ground that the suit is filed by the plaintiff under Sec