Point of law: principal relief claimed in the notice of motion filed by respondent No.1 to reject the plaint only qua the said respondent and which commended to the High Court, is replete with jurisdictional error. Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. That power is limited to rejection of the plaint as a whole or not at all

JUDGMENT :

1. All these revision applications have been filed by the original defendant No.4 in Special Civil Suit Nos.624/2014, 625/2014 and 626/2014 wherein their applications under Order VII – Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were rejected by the 17th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara by an order dated 6.2.2019 passed below Exh.15 in the respective suits.

2. Facts in brief are as under (For the purposes of the facts, facts from Civil Revision Application No.284/2019 are considered):

* The applicant was the original defendant No.4. The respondent No.1 had filed Special Civil Suit No.624 of 2014 before the Court of 17th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Baroda against the present applicant and other three defendants. It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit land was of the original ownership of one Jayesh Natvarlal Patel, respondent No.3 herein. According to the plaintiff, respondent No.1 herein, he and Jayesh Patel had entered into a partnership in the name of Satya Developers. The development agreement was entered into. The case of the plaintiff was that the respondent No.2 during the course of partnership, keeping the plaintiff respondent No.1 in the dark, executed certain documents, did not manage the partnership properly though he was engaged as a partner due to his proficiency and accounting etc and therefore committed breach of trust in the partnership firm. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that though the partnership was entered into on 14.12.2017 for development of several projects on the land in question including the suit project, without the consent of the plaintiff – respondent No.1, respondent No.2 unauthorizedly executed a registered sale deed dated 18.5.2011 by which he sold flat 1/A, on the First Floor of 'A' Wing to the defendant No.4, the applicant of the Civil Revision Application.

* It was the further case of the plaintiff on the reading of the plaint that since a fraud was committed by the defendant No.2 - Respondent No.1 partner Jayesh Patel, assignment deeds were entered into by and between the plaintiff – respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 – Jayesh Patel, wherein by virtue of those deed of assignments dated 12.1.2012, 22.4.2013, 21.6.2013 and 22.7.2013, the respondent No.2 – defendant No.2 partner had agreed that he would get the sale deed nullified. Since he did not adhere to these deeds of assignment, a notice was issued on 8.2.2014 and on having failed to do so, the plaintiff - respondent No.1 in the CRA was constrained to file the present suit on 4.12.2014. On filing of the suit, the present applicant who was the original defendant preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of CPC on 21.1.2015 contending that the flat was sold by the defendant No.2, admittedly, by the plaintiff to the applicant, defendant No.4 for a sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- on 18.5.2011. The defendant No.4 – applicant was in the exclusive ownership and occupation of the property. Admittedly, even according to the plaintiff, the partnership was dissolved on 12.1.2012, post the sale of the flat in favour of the defendant No.1. It was, therefore, the case of the applicant herein that the deed of assignment of which specific performance was sought, were in collusion with the defendant Nos.1 to 3. It was the further case of the applicant of the order 7 – Rule 11 application, the present civil revision applicant since what was prayed for was to set aside the sale deed dated 18.5.2011, as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the suit ought to have been filed on 17.5.2014, whereas, the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 3.12.2014, beyond a period of three years, and therefore the suit was barred by limitation and the plaint ought to be rejected.

* By the impugned order dated 6.2.2019, the learned Judge rejected the application under Order VII – Rule 11 of the CPC observing that though the registered sale deed is of 18.5.2011, the plaintiff came to know about the fact on 12.1.2012, the suit was file