IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit was clearly barred by the law of limitation and the plaint was required to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, (hereinafter referred to as “the C.P.C.”) has been preferred by the appellants – original plaintiffs by challenging the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.10 of 2023 by the learned 4th Addl. District Judge, Gandhidham, Kachchh.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the appellants in this appeal are as such that the appellants are the original plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No.126 of 2018,and the respondents are the original defendants. The land bearing survey no.130, admeasuring hector 1- 71-99 pratiare, situated at - village: Mithirohar, Ta. Gandhidham was originally owned by the ancestor of the plaintiff i.e. grandfather of the plaintiff namely Sodha Ishaq Visha. That after the demise of the father of the plaintiff i.e. Jusha Ishaq, partition of joint properties in the name of ancestor was carried out and vide entry no. 1526, the said property was mutated only in the name of Haru Jusha Sodha. That Haru Jusha Sodha sold the said property to Velji Govind Harijan (predecessor of respondent no. 1 herein) in the year 1994 and entry no. 1661 was mutated. Thereafter, the said property was transferred in the name of respondent no. 1 herein and entry no. 2817 was mutated for the same. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 has sold the said property to respondent no. 2 in the year 2005 and entry no. 3365 was mutated for the same. That the respondent no. 2 further sold the said property to respondent no.3 to 7 in the year 2015 and entry no. 5994 was mutated in the revenue record. That after the demise of father of the orig. plaintiff, name of only Haru Jusha Sodha was mutated and therefore, the plaintiff had filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

It is further the case of the appellants in this appeal are as such that the orig. defendant nos. 4 to 8 i.e. respondent no. 3 to 7 herein filed an application under Rule 7 order 11 of the C.P.C., below Exh. 24 for rejection of plaint and the same was allowed and the said suit was dismissed by the learned 5th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham vide judgment and order dated 13.09.2021. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the Ld. 5th Addl Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham, the appellants had preferred a Regular Civil Appeal no. 10 of 2023, u/s.96 of Civil Procedure Code before the Hon'ble District Court, Gandhidham at Kachchh, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2023 by upholding the judgment and order passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, order dated 11.12.2023, passed by the Ld. 4th Additional District Judge, Gandhidham at Kachchh, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Heard Mr. Jay R. Shah, the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. The following suggested substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of present Second Appeal are as under:

(i) Whether the lower appellate court as well as the Ld. Trial court has erred by coming to the conclusion that suit is barred by law of limitation that is the Limitation Act?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate court as well as the Ld. Trial court has erred in considering the fact that the plaintiff has not disclosed a proper cause of action for filling the suit?

(iii) Whether the lower appellate court as well as the Ld. Trial court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the relief sought by the plaintiff is not proper?

(iv) Whether the appellate court as well as the Ld. Trial court has failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court?

(v) Whether the impugned judgement and order passed by the courts below is perverse in nature as it has not considered the facts of the case properly?

(vi) Whether the appellate court as well as the Ld. Trial court has failed to consider the fact that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to a