The court has the authority to reject suits under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC if they are manifestly vexatious and grossly delayed, even in the absence of a plea of limitation.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vilav Bhatia on behalf of the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. D.C. Sejpal on behalf of the respondent.

2. By way of this appeal, the appellant-original plaintiff seeks to challenge an order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, Rajkot below application Exh.18 in Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2020 rejecting the suit under provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Facts relevant for deciding the appeal are as follows:

3.1 The appellant-original plaintiff had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2020 against the opponents herein inter alia challenging registered sale-deed No. 4266 dated 23.09.1998 more particularly whereby land admeasuring 9 Acres 18 Guntha out of land admeasuring 37 Acre 35 Guntha situated at Revenue Survey No. 367/1 Village: Khirsara (Ranmalaji) Taluka: Lodhika, District: Rajkot. The appellant plaintiff had also prayed for setting aside a Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant no. 2 whereby the sale-deed had been entered into.

3.2 It was the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the land in question i.e. land admeasuring 9 Acres 18 Guntha out of the total land admeasuring 37 Acres 35 Guntha of Revenue Survey No. 367/1 was of the ownership of her grandfather one Parakramsinh Jadeja and whereas upon his demise, the land had evolved upon father of the plaintiff one Manmohansinh Jadeja. It was the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the land had been sold by defendant no. 2 as Power of Attorney Holder vide registered sale-deed dated 23.09.1998 to the defendant no. 1 i.e. respondent no. 1 herein and whereas at the time of the sale-deed, the signature and thumb impression were forged more particularly with an intent to commit a fraud and whereas according to the plaintiff at the relevant point of time the plaintiff as well as her sister-defendant no. 7 were minor and whereas it was attempted to be clarified that the plaintiff and defendant no. 7 were aged less than 21 years. It was also contended that defendant no. 2-Power of Attorney Holder had not paid any consideration to the plaintiff as mentioned in the sale-deed and therefore also the sale-deed was required to be set aside. The plaintiff had mentioned in the suit that while she was married in the year 2003 and residing at Bhuj and whereas she was not aware about the fraud or transfer or the bogus power of attorney but approximately two months prior to filing of the suit she had come to her maternal home at Rajkot and whereas she had come to know about such sale from discussion with her family members and at that time she has realized about the fraud and thus she had preferred the suit which was according to the plaintiff within time frame.

3.3 It appears that upon the notice of the suit being issued, the defendant no. 1 had appeared and had submitted an application vide Exh.18 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC inter-alia praying for rejection of the plaint. It was contended by the defendant no. 1 that the plaintiff had challenged a sale-deed after approximately 20 years whereas the limitation provided for challenging a sale-deed being three years, the suit being hopelessly barred.

3.4 It appears that upon application below Exh.18 being filed, the plaintiff had tendered a reply to such application inter-alia contending that the suit was within limitation and whereas it was requested to reject the said application.

3.5 It appears that vide the impugned decision, the learned Civil Court had agreed with the contention of the defendant no. 1 and had rejected the plaint under provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC more particularly on the ground that the suit was time barred.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhatia on behalf of the appellant who would submit that the learned Civil Judge, had committed a grave error in rejecting the suit more particularly holding that the suit is barred by limitation and the suit does not disclose a cause of action.

5. Learned Advocate Mr.