B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. The order under challenge is the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the 12th Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") below Exh. 14 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1042/2015, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner (original defendant No. 4), seeking rejection of the plaint, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

2. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Jigar Patel that the suit filed by the respondents - plaintiffs is barred by the law of limitation, and that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Fatehji and Company and Anr. v. L.M. Nagpal and Ors., reported in AIR 2015 SC 2301 and the decision of this Court in the case of Kanjibhai Bhagwanjibhai Patel v. Nanduben Shamjibhai Sorathiya through P.O.A., Dharmesh P. Trivedi, reported in 2013 (1) GLR 51, he submitted that the plaint could be rejected under Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11, if the suit is ex facie barred by law of limitation. According to Mr. Patel, the respondents - plaintiffs had deemed knowledge of the execution of the sale deed from the date on which sale deed was registered in the year 2010 and the suit having been filed in the year 2015, the suit was patently barred by law of limitation. He also submitted that the averments made in the plaint with regard to the cause of action are also vague, and therefore also, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.

3. Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the respondents - plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking partition of the suit property and seeking declaration to the effect that the registered sale deed dated 16.12.2010 executed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the defendant No. 4 was null and void, as no consent of the plaintiffs, who were also the co-owners of the suit property, was taken before selling the suit property. The present petitioner, who is original defendant No. 4 in the suit had moved an application Exh. 14, for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 mainly on the ground that the suit was barred by law of limitation. The said application having been rejected by the trial Court, the present petition has been filed under Section 115 of CPC.

4. It cannot be gainsaid that the plaint could be rejected under Clause (a) of Order VII, Rule 11, if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, and under Clause (d) thereof, if the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. In the instant case, the respondents - plaintiffs have filed the suit alleging that the suit property was an ancestral property and they had an undivided share in the same. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had sold out the suit property to defendant No. 4 without their knowledge and consent. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that they filed the suit as soon as they came to know about the said sale. The plaintiffs thus have categorically stated about the cause of action, and hence it could not be said that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. It is true that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint, it is manifestly found to be vexatious and meritless, not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled, and that if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Court should nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC, as held by Supreme Court in case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr., reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421. However, the Court is not competent to make an elaborate inquiry into the doubtful or complicated question of