Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Natwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sharda Sharma – Respondent
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 upo
The court clarified that knowledge of encroachment does not imply knowledge of a sale deed, impacting the limitation period for filing a suit.
The court established that limitation issues can involve mixed questions of law and fact, which cannot be resolved at the preliminary stage of proceedings.
Issues of limitation in civil suits must be resolved through evidence, preventing dismissal of plaints at an early stage based solely on claims of knowledge.
The question of limitation in civil suits is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence to determine the plaintiff's knowledge of essential facts.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it is barred by limitation or fails to disclose a cause of action, emphasizing the necessity for clear and truthful averments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is found to be manifestly vexatious and without merit, and does not disclose a....
A perusal of the observations made indicates that the Court while laying down the above proposition has used the word ‘ordinarily’ and has not laid down that even in a case where the issue of limitat....
The court ruled that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deed in 2014, making their 2019 suit barred by limitation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
