A suit challenging a sale deed filed after the limitation period is barred and must be dismissed, emphasizing the necessity of disclosing a valid cause of action and proper valuation.

Order :

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners defendant nos. 1 and 10 aggrieved from order dated 17.10.2022 in civil suit no. 498/2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (North) Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby an application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to instant revision petition are that plaintiff respondent no.1 has filed a civil suit for declaration of registered sale deed dated 10.12.1985 as void and ineffective to his rights and permanent injunction. The present petitioners have filed application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 9 and 151 of CPC on the ground that on the basis of pleadings made by plaintiff in the plaint, a civil suit is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 and same is not maintainable before the civil court. Further, an objection was raised that plaintiff has challenged registered sale deed dated 10.12.1985 after 37 years of execution, therefore, the suit is also barred by law of limitation. The petitioners have further raised an objection that suit is improperly valued and sufficient court fee is not paid. At last, locus of plaintiff to file civil suit including non accrual of cause of action was raised. The trial court has dismissed the application on 17.10.2022 and aggrieved from impugned order the instant revision petition is preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the grounds and averment in the plaint has submitted that as per plaintiff this property was purchased as benami but the pleadings clearly indicate that the averment in plaint is contrary to Section 4 of Benami Transaction Act and the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that the document was challenged by plaintiff without disclosing the reasons of delay after a long period of 37 years, such suit is barred by law of limitation. He also referred the material on record and submitted that the plaintiff has failed to show his locus to file instant civil suit and no cause of action accrued in favour of plaintiff to file instant civil suit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the property was purchased in 1975 but same was under rigour of Rajasthan Land Ceiling Act and only after release in 1985, a deed was registered. He also referred improper valuation of plaint and insufficient court fee and submitted that the plaintiff has not filed adequate court fee, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 and submitted that when a suit is barred by law or it does not disclose any cause of action then same has to be rejected at very threshold to save precious time of the Court.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent plaintiff and submitted that application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has to be decided on the basis of avernment made in the plaint and document submitted in support of plaint. He further referred to the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and submitted that any material which essentially discloses the defence of the defendant is not required to be looked into at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC . He further submitted that the question of limitation is essentially a mixed question of law and facts and same can only be adjudicated after recording the evidence of the parties. He further referred para no. 12 of the plaint and submitted that plaintiff has disclosed entire cause of action and on the basis of cause of action accrued in favour of plaintiff, the instant suit is filed before the trial court. He also referred the provision of law and submitted that the plaint has sufficiently been valued and court fee has been paid as per law. He further submitted that the plaintiff is owner of suit property but defendant nos. 1 and 10 misused the love and affectionate relati