The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of including all relevant facts in the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC and the impact of fraud on the period of limitation under section 17 of the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

G.R. Udhwani, J.

1. Order dated 16.04.2016 rendered below Exh. 11 and Exh. 8 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Radhanpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 2015 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') rejecting the application seeking rejection of the plaint is sought to be assailed by unsuccessful defendant in these Civil Revision Applications under Section 115 of CPC.

2. The dispute in the suit centers around the land bearing Revenue Survey Number No. 377/b/6 paiki of Radhanpur City Survey Sheet No. 85, City Survey Note No. 6553 admeasuring 0.29 guntha i.e 2934 square meters.

2.1. One deceased Hasubhai Kalubhai Shaikh the father of the opponent Nos. 1 to 5 was the owner of the said land. He is said to have conveyed the titles thereon to the petitioner by the sale-deed dated 08.07.1988; the vendor died on 10.10.1990:

2.2. Opponent Nos. 1 to 5 raised the dispute in relation to the said land in the notice addressed to the petitioner. The grievance in the notice was that the dispute which was earlier raised in respect of the identification of two parcels of land still persists and what had been sold to the petitioner is the land admeasuring 11560 square feet and not the entire parcel of land and that rest of the portion was in their possession, in respect of which, they were collecting rent and the sale-deed which comprehended the entire piece of land was forged and bogus and was not executed by their father. Reply to the notice was given by the petitioner on 22.11.2002 and thereafter the plaintiffs did not take any action as indicated in the notice, for a period of about 13 years. The suit was filed in the year 2015.

2.3. Although the plaintiffs are unable to disown the notice, they avoided the elaborate reference to the facts contained in the notice and only stated in their pleadings that such notice was issued by them. The plaintiffs thus deliberately avoided in the plaint the date of notice presumably to avoid the wreath of Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

3. In the aforesaid background, the case is required to be appreciated.

4. It is settled legal position that the averments in the plaint and the document can only be the material to persuade the court to decide the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. At times however by resorting to clever drafting certain relevant facts would be omitted from the plaint so as to save the case from the clutches of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. This court thus explained the purpose, object and scope of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC in Rajhansh Infracon India (Pvt) Ltd. v. Santosh Rameshbhai Rathod (Civil Revision Application No. 343 of 2019 decided on 26.12.2019 (AIR Online 2019 Guj 782)). It was inter alia pointed that the plaintiff must make all the averments to his knowledge and information in the plaint and cannot claim a premium for deliberate omission of certain relevant facts. The suppressed facts, if brought to the notice of the court, can always be taken into account for the purpose of Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.

4.1. It is again settled legal position that the plaint would mean the plaint as a whole and the plaint in part cannot be rejected if sustainable under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. On this count proposition relied upon by learned counsel Mr. Satta in Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchant Pvt. Ltd., : AIR 2017 SC 4477 : (AIR 2018 SC (Civ) 415) is required to be taken note of.

4.2. It is. again settled position that when the disputed facts require adjudication by trial, the powers under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC cannot be exercised. Furthermore when the fraud is pleaded, it is again settled legal position that the period of limitation would not run as indicated in section 17 of the Limitation Act of fraud until noticing of the fraud by the person defrauded thereby.

5. The plaintiff could not dispute the notice (supra). As Indicated above, he clearly questioned the sale-deed itself on various counts in the notice itself in the year 2002. The plain