The rejection of a plaint under the civil code is improper when the issue of limitation involves disputed factual contentions, such as the date of knowledge of an alleged fraudulent transfer. Such issues must be adjudicated through a full-fledged trial rather than summary dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN M. DESAI, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of opponent No.1. With the consent of respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.

2. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") by the petitioners - original defendant Nos.3 and 4, assailing an order of rejection of application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. J. R. Shah for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel for Opponent No.1.

4. Brief facts of the present case are as under:-

4.1. The respondent No.1 - original plaintiff filed a suit against the present applicants as well as against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for Tenement bearing No.20 of Sukhipura Cooperative Housing Society Limited, situated at Survey No.253/1, Town Planning Scheme No. 21, and Final Plot Scheme No. 485. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property and as after the death of his wife in the year 1987, relations between the plaintiff and the son of plaintiff Kishore Laljibhai Gangera who happens to be the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2, did not remain healthy and the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 left the suit property. The plaintiff shifted to Vadodara and married to one Ms. Neeruben and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. When plaintiff visited Ahmedabad in the month of January 2021, plaintiff came to know from defendant Nos.1 and 2, who happens to be the grandchildren, that the suit property has been sold to defendant No.3 by a registered sale deed dated 22.12.2014. The plaintiff thereafter, filed a suit for declaration of his title qua suit property together with a relief of cancellation and setting aside of the sale deed dated 22.12.2014. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code, which came to be rejected vide order dated 07.02.2026.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are before this Court.

6. Learned advocate for the applicants contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs challenging registered sale deed dated 22.12.2014 by defendant Nos.1 and 2 is a time barred suit. It is submitted that before the execution of the registered sale deed, the son of plaintiff Kishore Laljibhai Gangera, executed an agreement to sell on 13.06.2002 and possession of the suit property was handed over to defendant No.4. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed affidavit dated 13.04.2013. Kishore Laljibhai Gangera- son of plaintiff expired on 14.05.2014. Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2014 also came to be executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.4. A Kabulat cum Samati Patra was also executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No.4 on 19.11.2014. Defendant No.1 executed another affidavit. On 27.11.2014, defendant Nos.1 and 2 also executed a Kabulat cum Samati Patra in favour of defendant No.4 and thereafter, on 22.12.2014, a sale deed was executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 who happens to be the wife of defendant No.4.

7. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have not disclosed the date of knowledge with regard to the execution of the sale deed and a very vague and general averment is made that in the month of January 2021, plaintiff came to know about the impugned sale deed. It is further submitte