The court clarified that knowledge of encroachment does not imply knowledge of a sale deed, impacting the limitation period for filing a suit.

ORDER

1. This revision petition, which is reported to be time barred by 99 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. For the reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay in preferring the revision petition is condoned.

3. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.6 (for brevity, 'defendant No.6') against the order dated 25.11.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for brevity, 'the learned trial Court') in Civil Suit No.56/2017 whereby, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents No.1 to 6/plaintiffs (for brevity, 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.09.1998, mandatory and permanent injunction against the petitioner and the respondents No.7 to 12 stating therein that they came to know in January, 2017 of the execution of the sale deed dated 14.09.1998 of their property in favour of the defendant No.6 which was null and void against their rights. It was averred that the defendants have encroached upon a part of the subject property and hence, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

5. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC came to be filed by the defendant No.6 stating therein that the suit was hit by limitation and no cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 25.11.2017, impugned herein.

6. Assailing the order, only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit was hit by the law of limitation. Referring to the various paragraphs of the plaint, learned counsel submits that since, the plaintiffs came to know of possession by the defendants over the subject property in the year, 2012, it could reasonably be inferred that they were also aware of the execution of the sale deed dated 14.09.1998 from that time. He submits that by cleverly drafting the plaint to avoid the law of limitation, the suit has been filed claiming knowledge of the sale deed in January, 2017 which is barred by law. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be allowed, the order dated 25.11.2017 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC be allowed.

Heard. Considered.

7. From the averments in the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff No.1 is residing along with her family members at Jaipur or outside Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer where the subject property is situated and when she visited the place in January 2017, she came to know of execution of the sale deed dated 14.09.1998 in favour of the defendant No.6. Although, it is averred in the plaint that prior to it, in the years 2012 & 2016, when she visited Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer, she came to know of encroachment by the defendants over the subject property; but, from this fact alone, it can not be inferred at this stage that the plaintiffs were also having the knowledge of the sale deed too from that time. From the averments in the plaint, this Court is not satisfied that the suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 14.09.1998 is hit by law of limitation. It is trite law while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 along with 151 CPC only the averments in the plaint are to be seen.

8. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court did not err in rejecting the application filed by the defendant No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

9. In view thereof, this revision petition is dismissed.