1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner impugning the order dt. 07/10/2011 whereby its application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed in a suit for cancellation, declaration, possession and injunction has been disallowed.

2. The brief facts germane to resolve the controversy are stated as under:

2.1. For the sake of brevity and expression, the petitioner herein has been referred to as the defendant and the respondent as plaintiff.

3. That on 21/12/2010, the plaintiff instituted a suitagainst the defendant for cancellation of a registered saledeed dt.11/09/2007 alongwith recovery of possession andother reliefs. In the plaint, the plaintiff avers that shealongwith other co-owners of the suit property agreed to salethe same to the defendant upon an oral contract, that aconsideration of Rs.3 Crore would be paid by the defendant.The plaintiff further avers that she only understands Urdulanguage and is not able to read or write either English orHindi language & the defendant on various occasions paid anamount of only Rs. 50 lacs in furtherance of the above agreedsale consideration. The plaintiff further pleads that thedefendant got her signatures on blank papers and stamppapers and contracted that the rest amount of Rs. 2.5 Croreshall be handed over at the time of taking possession fromthe plaintiff. The plaintiff further avers that on 11/09/2007 thedefendant alongwith certain men claiming to be theemployees of the Office of the Registrar Department came tothe plaintiff's house and assured the plaintiff that the balanceof sale consideration of Rs.2.5 Crore shall be given to her atthe time of obtaining possession of the suit property and theplaintiff claims in the suit that relying on such avermentscoupled with the fact that she was an illiterate lady, shesigned and executed the document at her house withoutreading the contents of such document. The plaintiff thenclaims that in October 2009, the defendant came alongwithsome policemen and other persons and tried to forciblydisposses the plaintiff and when the plaintiff reminded thedefendant to pay the balance of Rs.2.5 Crore, the defendantrefused. The plaintiff further pleads that forced by suchcircumstances, she was obliged to institute a suit forinjunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction.In the suit itself, the plaintiff clarifies that such temporaryinjunction application was dismissed by both the court of firstinstance as well as the appellate court & a writ was pendingimpugning such orders. The plaintiff further asserts that on10/05/2010 in the garb of above orders, the defendantdispossessed her from the suit property and thus claiming tobe aggrieved by such act of the defendant, the plaintiffinstituted the suit claiming to annul the registered sale deeddt. 11/09/2007 and has sought recovery of possession andother ancillary reliefs. The plaintiff in the suit also asserts thatcause of action to file the present suit accrued to her on10/05/2010 when she claims to be dispossessed from the suitproperty by the defendant. The plaintiff further asserts hersuit to be in limitation in accordance with article 58, 59 and 67of the Limitation Act.

4. The defendant entered appearance in the suit and moved an application in the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC urging to reject the suit on the following grounds:-

(a) the sale deed was executed on 11/09/2007 and registered on 18/09/2007 and thus the suit was barred by law of limitation being instituted after the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years.

(b) no suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed can be filed on the basis of unpaid sale consideration and at the most only a suit for recovery of balance sale consideration

is maintainable and hence the suit ought to be rejected as on a meaningful reading of the plaint no “cause