ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta on behalf of the appellants.

2. By way of this appeal, the appellants have sought to challenge an order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol, dated 30.09.2022, rejecting the plaint preferred by the present appellants in Special Civil Suit No. 41 of 2017, under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the CPC”).

3. It appears that the appellants herein were the original plaintiffs in the Special Civil Suit 41 of 2017 preferred before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Kalol, wherein the plaintiffs had inter-alia prayed for declaration as regards land bearing Survey No. 776 Paiki, Survey No. 776/1 being Block No. 981 is of their ownership, more particularly received by the plaintiffs by way of inheritance, and a declaration against the defendants that they do not have any right, title or interest in the property in question is sought for and it is also prayed to set aside a registered sale deed, whereby the suit property had been sold by the defendant Nos. 1 to 13 in favour of the defendant Nos. 13 and 14. It appears that upon summons being issued to the defendants, the defendants having appeared through their learned Advocate had submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC praying for rejection of the plaint. It would further appear that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge vide the order impugned had allowed the application below Exh.28 preferred by the defendants and had rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. The said order is sought to be assailed by way of the present appeal.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta for the appellants would take this Court through the averments made in the plaint as well as the impugned order and would submit that the learned Civil Court had committed a grave error inasmuch as though a specific cause of action has been made in the plaint, the learned Civil Court had rejected the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC and whereas it is further submitted that though the suit was filed well within limitation, the learned Civil Court without considering the same, had rejected the suit as being barred by limitation. Learned Advocate would further submit that the plaintiffs and the defendants are residents of Village Raacharda, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar and whereas both the sides were holding agricultural lands which were situated adjacent to each other. It is submitted that the plaintiffs’ ancestor was one Jivabhai Motibhai Dhanabhai Patel and whereas the defendants had an ancestor who had similar sounding name Jivabhai Motibhai Prabhubhai Patel. It is submitted that upon demise of father of Jivabhai Motibhai Dhanabhai Patel, his legal heirs Jivabhai and Tribhovanbhai and their respective families were show as co-owners of the land bearing Survey No. 776/1 and 776/2 vide entry No. 1297 dated 24.09.1961. It also appears that the land bearing Survey No. 776/1 came to the share of Jivabhai and land bearing Survey No. 776/2 came to the share of Tribhovanbhai. Learned Advocate would further contend that there was an amalgamation made of Survey No. 776/1 and Survey No. 776/2, which were converted into Block No. 981 and Block No. 982, respectively. It was contended that on conversion of the land from survey numbers to block numbers, by inadvertence, instead of the ancestor of the plaintiffs i.e. Jivabhai Motibhai Dhanabhai being shown as owners of the land, ancestor of the defendants i.e. Jivabhai Motibhai Prabhubhai was shown as owner of the land and whereas upon demise of the said Jivabhai Motibhai Prabhubhai in the year 1975, names of his legal heirs were entered into the revenue record. Learned Advocate would submit that in was in context of such a situation where the land though belonged to the family of the plaintiffs, yet on account of mistake, name of ancestor of the defendants had been entered into the revenue record that