JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present revision application has been filed by the original defendant-applicant herein under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short “the CPC”) inter-alia challenging the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Jasdan, below application Exh.12 in Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2015. The applicant is the original defendant in the suit filed application below Exh.12 under the provisions of Order VII rule 11(a)(b)(d) of the CPC for rejection of the aforesaid plaint instituted by the respondents-original plaintiffs.

FACTS:

2. It is the case of the defendant-applicant that the plaintiffs-respondents have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2015, inter-alia, challenging sale deed dated 08.05.1995 in favour of the applicant for the land situated at revenue Survey Nos. 144, 145 and 151 of Village Dadali, Tal. Vinchhiya, Dist.Rajkot. They have also prayed for restoration of possession of the land in their favour. The case of the plaintiffs is that the mother of the plaintiffs-Savitaben passed away on 07.08.1998 and their grandfather-Maiyaram Karshandas had purchased the suit land, in question on 09.12.1957 from Kachar Bhojbhai Jethabhai. It is further asserted by the plaintiffs that the sale deed in favour of the defendant-present applicant dated 08.05.1995 is illegal because the said defeats their rights since the father of the plaintiffs was illiterate person and, therefore, he could not object to the sale deed during his lifetime. With such and other averments the suit was instituted.

3. It is the case of the present applicant that on being served with the summons of the suit he filed an application below Exh.12 under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b)(d) of the CPC, on the ground that the suit [Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2015] of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and there is absolutely no cause of action for instituting the suit and even otherwise sufficient Court fee stamp is not affixed.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, appearing for the applicant-original defendant has tendered a copy of the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the Collector, District Rajkot, confirming the order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Collector, Jasdan, and a copy of which is also supplied to the learned advocate Ms. Tanaya G. Shah, appearing for the opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, to which she has submitted that she is aware of the said order and she does not dispute the same. The same is ordered to be taken on record.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, appearing for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the applicant-original defendant is required to be quashed and set aside since the Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the suit itself is barred by limitation. He has further submitted that the perusal of the plaint would reveal that the suit is filed after the order dated 21.08.2015 is passed by the Deputy Collector, Jasdan rejecting the application of the plaintiffs, which was filed challenging the revenue entry No. 327 recorded on 03.05.1996.

6. It is submitted that taking a clue from the order passed by the Deputy Collector, wherein it is observed that the plaintiffs can file a suit seeking a declaration declaring the documents as forged, the suit is instituted. He has submitted that in view of the specific averments made in the plaint, the same is barred by limitation, since the revenue entry No. 327 was mutated on 03.05.1996 when the father of the plaintiff was alive.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Collector as well as the District Collector, Rajkot district confirms the fact that the revenue entry No. 327 was mutated on 08.03.1996 and was certified on 31.05.1996. It is submitted that after undertaking the necessary procedures of issuance of notice under Section 135(d) of the Gujarat Revenue Code, 1879, which was received by the father of the applicant, s