ORDER

Heard learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents 1st set.

2. The present civil revision is directed against the order dated 04.04.2017 passed by learned court of subjudge III, Gaya in Title Suit Case No. 75 of 2016/569 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the petition of some of the petitioners/defendants under Order VII, Rule XI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter CPC) for rejection of the plaint has been rejected holding thereby that on the basis of the pleadings and the documents which form the basis of the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaint can be rejected at the initial stage itself and the fact of knowledge of the plaintiff regarding the execution of the sale deed is to be decided in the course of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant case submitted that the learned trial court committed illegality in refusing the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule XI of the CPC, and therefore, the impugned order is illegal, improper and against the mandatory provisions of law and is liable to be set aside. The learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiffs/respondents 1st set have sought a very vague relief “B” where they have prayed for declaration of the sale deeds executed by Raj Kumar Pandey or their transferees if any to be canceled as void ab initio as in the whole body of plaint there is no mention of any detail or particulars of the any sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners/defendants.

3 (i) He further submitted that the plaint mentions in the paragraph 19 that the plaintiffs/respondents 1st set learned and obtained certified copy of sale deeds on 16.08.2016, which is sans of any details of the sale deed so obtained which makes it apparent that the alleged cause of action never arose.

3 (ii) He further submitted that the plaint itself mentions that the first sale deed was executed in the year 1989 and the presumption of knowledge regarding the execution of the suit property must be assumed from 1989 only, therefore, document/instrument must be brought within a period of 3 years from the date when it first became known to him as per article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter Limitation Act) and therefore, the present plaint is fit to be rejected under Order VII, Rule XI (d) as it is barred by limitation.

3 (iii) He again submits that the plaintiffs/respondents 1st set have prayed for cancellation of the sale deeds without giving any details of the sale deeds which clearly demonstrates the fact that the plaintiffs/respondents 1st set have got no cause of action. Further, as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (hereinafter T.P.A.) once sale deed is registered it is presumed that it becomes known to all including the vendors hence, the period of limitation begins from the year 1989 when the suit property was first registered by one Ram Kumar Pandey, Son of Kamal Pandey, the predecessor in title in respect of the petitioners in the instant case.

3 (iv) He further submits that the learned trial court indulged in perversity by not rejecting the plaint as the suit filed is vexatious and meritless and considering the averments made in the plaint, it is apparent on the face of the record that it does not discloses any cause of action and it is barred by limitation. Further, the impugned order is wholly illegal, perverse and mechanical and is liable to set aside as it is suffering from jurisdictional error.

3 (v) He further relied on the relevant paragraphs of a catena of judgments to bolster his arguments including Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association reported in (2005) 7 SCC 510, Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601, Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.Rs. vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s & Ors. reported in (2022) 3 BLJ (SC) 136, Bhagirath Prasad S