The denial of a plaint based on limitation or absence of cause of action requires full trial; allegations of fraud establish a valid cause for litigation, demanding judicial examination.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant No.4 has challenged the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No.170 of 2018, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed, but with the observation that the plaintiffs was to affix appropriate Court fee over the file as per Rules.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’) have filed suit against the petitioner as well as other proforma respondents herein, which is pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge at Manali. As per the plaintiffs, the suit land measuring 7-16 bighas, situated in Phati Burva Kothi, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. was earlier owned and possessed by Shri Manglu, father of plaintiff No.1 and grand-father of plaintiff No.2. Manglu was an illiterate person who had two sons i.e. plaintiff No.1 and Likhat Ram, father of plaintiff No.2. After the death of Likhat Ram he was succeeded by his son i.e. plaintiff No.2. After the death of Manglu, the plaintiffs were enjoying and using the suit land as its absolute owners. Defendant No.1 was a mischievous and influential person who used to visit Manglu. He allured Manglu that he would help Manglu in raising loan from a Bank so that a hotel could be constructed over part of the suit land. As Manglu was old and was not in a position to visit the Bank, therefore, defendant No.1 stated that he would get everything done at his house. One day defendant No.1 brought some stamp papers and got the same signed from Manglu. He took plaintiff No.1 with him to Tehsil Complex, Kullu and got certain documents signed from him there. The same were signed by plaintiff No.1 as he believed that the documents were for raising loan for the construction of a Hotel. Defendant No.1 again came to the house of the plaintiffs in August, 1991 and stated that certain more documents were required to obtain the loan and on this plea he again got certain documents signed from plaintiff No.1 in-connivance with the scribe and witnesses of the said documents. Thereafter, defendant No.1 alongwith some Lumberdar went to the Tehsil Office and kept plaintiff No.1 standing outside the Tehsil Office. After some time, defendant No.1 asked plaintiff No.1 to come into the Tehsil Office where the signatures of plaintiff No.1 were obtained by a Clerk and the plaintiff was informed that the entire documentation was complete and the loan would be released in a few months time. According to the plaintiffs, Manglu never sold the suit land through Sale Deed, dated 24.08.1991 on the basis of a General Power of Attorney executed in his favour and the Sale Deed was illegal, null and void and so was mutation attested on 07.09.1992. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that in the 1^st week of November, 2018, defendant No.4 i.e. the present petitioner, through its agents came to the plaintiffs and proclaimed that they were the owners of the suit land as the same stood sold to them by defendant No.1. On this, the plaintiffs inquired from the Revenue Authorities and came to know that the property stood sold by defendant No.1 to defendant No.4 in the year 2011, which fraud came to their knowledge only in the 1^st week of November, 2018. It is in this background that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking the declaration that the Sale Deed dated 24.08.1991 was null and void with further declaration that the sale of the suit land by defendant No.1 to defendant No.4 vide mutation No.3698, dated 08.11.2021 be also declared as illegal, null and void.

3. By way of application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plain