The plaintiff's suppression of material facts, abuse of legal process, and the suit being barred by law of limitation and Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act were central legal points established in the judgment.

M.R SHAH, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 11.03.2016 passed below Exhs.22 and 24 in Special Civil Suit No. 262/2014 by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) by which in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) the learned trial Court has rejected the plaint, the original plaintiff has preferred the present First Appeal.

2. Facts leading to the present First Appeal in nut-shell can be summarized as follows:

3. That the appellant herein - original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “original plaintiff) had filed Special Civil Suit No. 262/2014 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara for a declaration to declare and cancel the sale deed executed by the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the original defendant No. 3 for the immovable property/open land bearing Survey Nos. 109, 111 and 112 (hereinafter referred to as “lands in question”) on the ground that the plaintiff is the absolute and legal owner of the lands in question which ash been fraudulently sold by original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the original defendant No. 3.

4. The plaintiff had also further prayed in the suit to cancel the corresponding Memorandum of Entry registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Savli, District Vadodara with respect to the lands in question.

5. It is averred in the plaint that though the lands in question were not mortgaged by the original land owners with the original defendant No. 1 while taking the loan/advance and despite the same in the Memorandum of Entry which was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Savli fraudulently, there was an entry with respect to the lands in question on which the original defendant No. 2 took the loan/advance from the original defendant No. 1 - Andhra Bank and which subsequently came to be auctioned by the original defendant No. 1-Andhra Bank in favour of the original defendant No. 3 in collusion with the earlier power of attorney Shri. Umang Patel who was alleged to be the power of attorney of the original land owners Jasbhai Narsinhbhai Patel and others. It was also averred in the plaint that while auctioning the lands in question, no notices were served upon the original land owners and therefore, the proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”) is illegal. In the plaint the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is that on 29.04.2014 the persons of original defendant No. 3 and some antisocial elements went to the place of the lands in question and threatened him to remove from the lands.

6. That having been served with the summons/notice of the suit, the original defendant No. 3 submitted the application below Exh.22 requesting to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC by submitting that the plaintiff has not stated the correct facts before the Court and has suppressed the material fact. It was submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed the pendency of the Special Civil Suit No. 101/2010 filed by the original defendant No. 3 against the original plaintiff and original defendant No. 2 and others pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Vadodara which has been filed by the original defendant No. 3 to declare the collusive decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 548/2009 which was filed by the original plaintiff against the original defendant No. 2. It was submitted that despite the fact that the plaintiff has appeared in the said suit on 25.02.2010, the plaintiff had not stated anything about the same. It was submitted that even there is no reference to the order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 101/2010. It was submitted that the plaintiff has tried to mislead the Court by suppressi