ORDER :

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bheem, Rajsamand in Civil Original No. 3/2022 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendant has been rejected.

2. The ground raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was that the suit has been filed on the basis of a forged and fabricated document dated 25.11.2014 (the sale deed) wherein no consideration amount has been specified and therefore, the said document is void from its inception. An averment that the suit has not been preferred within a period of three years has also been made and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed being time barred. The learned Court below concluded that the question whether the document in question was forged and fabricated, could be decided only after evidence being led on the same and the same cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

3. So far as the ground of the suit being time barred is concerned, the Court below held that a specific averment was made in the plaint that there being an interim order passed by the revenue Court qua the land in question, the sale deed although executed, could not be presented for registration and therefore, the said question also, being factual, could be decided only after evidence being led on the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare reading of the pleadings as made in the plaint itself clarifies that the suit was time barred as even the proceedings before the Revenue Court wherein an interim order was alleged to be operating, were decided in the year 2018 whereas the suit was preferred in the year 2022 which, on the face of it, is bared by time. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil and Ors. , (2022) AIR (SC) 4724 and this Court in Sachu Ram & Anr. v. Smt. Parmeshwari Bai, 2018(2) CJ (Civ.) (Raj) 1069.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the limitation in the present matter would commence only after the refusal/denial of the defendant in terms of Article 54 of the LIMITATION ACT . It has been submitted that the defendant, never ever, denied for presentation of the document rather repeatedly assured for doing so. Therefore, the limitation, if any, would commence only from the date of service of notice i.e. 24.12.2021 which was served on the defendant calling upon him to get the sale deed registered. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India and Anr. , AIR 2020 SC 2721 .

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. For proper adjudication of the case, the averments as made in the plaint are relevant. It has been averred by the plaintiff as under:

^^1--------------

2- ;g fd izfroknh la[;k 1 }kjk 12]000@& :i;s v{kjs ckjg gtkj :i;s ds LVkEi [kjhn dj mDr Hkwfe dk oknh ds i{k c;ukek Vkbi djok dj izfroknh la[;k 1 }kjk vaxw”B fu'kkuh dj xokgku ds lkeus oknh ls izfrQy dh jkf'k 2]50]000@& :i;s v{kjs nks yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s udn izkIr dj fy;s fQj iath;u ds leLr nLrkostkr rS;kj dj iath;u dh lkjh dk;Zokgh iwjh djus ds i'pkr izfroknh la[;k 1 us oknh dks dgk fd dqN rduhdh o dkuwuh vM+pu vk tkus ls vkt jftLVªh ugh gks ik,xh dkuwuh vM+pu ds gV tkus ds ckn og rglhy esa tkdj jftLVªh djok nsaxsA 3- ;g fd mDRk oknxzLr vkjkft;kr ls lEcf/kr jdcs ckcr~ dqN O;fDr;ksa }kjk ftyk dyDVj egksn; jktlean ds ;agk ij okn is'k dj j[ks Fks tks fo