ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st to 5th defendants in O.S. No. 5681 of 2016, pending on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. They are aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No. 4833 of 2017, by order dated 05.02.2020. The said Interlocutory Application had been filed by them under Order VII Rule 7 (a), (b) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint as barred by law, as having no cause of action and want of appropriate court fees.

2. The suit in O.S. No. 5681 of 2016 had been filed the plaintiff/1st respondent herein against the present revision petitioners and another defendant J. Venugopal, who had chosen not to participate either in hearings of the Interlocutory Application or before this Court. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that a Partition Deed dated 11.02.2000 executed among the revision petitioners/1st to 5th defendants and registered as Document No. 409 of 2000 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Purasaiwakkam, and an exparte decree dated 28.02.2003 passed in O.S. No. 5725 of 2002 on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai filed by the revision petitioners/1st to 5th defendants against the 6th defendant J. Venugopal are both null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners/1st to 5th defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the property bearing No. 20/2, Ponappa Mudali Street, Vysarpadi, Chennai and for costs.

3. Heard arguments advanced by Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the revision petitioners/1st to 5th defendants and Mr.R.Manickavel, learned Counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

4. Mrs. Hema Sampath, Learned Senior Counsel took the Court through the plaint and stated that the reliefs to declare that the partition deed dated 28.02.2000 and the exparte decree in O.S. 5725 of 2002 dated 28.02.2003 as null and void are barred by the law of limitation. The partition deed is a registered document, reflected in the encumbrance certificate and the plaintiff cannot disclaim knowledge of the same. The decree in O.S. No. 5725 of 2002 had been passed after due procedure and unless fraud is pleaded, the same cannot be impinged after nearly 2 decades. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the immediate cause of action was said to be the lodging of a police complaint, but also pointed out that a copy of the said complaint had not been filed as a document with the plaint. As a matter of fact even the date had not been mentioned and that fact had also not been stated in the cause of action paragraph. Learned Senior Counsel was emphatic in her submissions that the plaint in O.S. No. 5681 of 2016 should be rejected and found fault with the order dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed seeking such relief.

5. Mr. R.Manickavel, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff on the other hand disputed the said contentions, and stated that the issue of limitation is always a mixed question of law and facts which can be determined only after analyzing the evidence adduced. Similarly with respect to the grounds to declare the exparte decree as null and void, learned counsel stated that the 1st respondent/plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to tender evidence to substantiate fraud, and invited the revision petitioners to participate in the trial and test the evidence during cross examination. Learned Counsel stated that the 1st respondent/plaintiff came to know about the partition deed and the exparte only during the enquiry in the police station and stated that therefore the suit is not barred by limitation.

6. In Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, the Honourable Supreme Court had held as follows:-

“23.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deci