The rights of legal heirs to pursue claims do not lapse upon the death of the original plaintiff, ensuring suits remain viable despite substitution under the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner is Defendant No.2 in C.S.No. 6 of 2021 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Khandapara, wherein the present Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 are the substituted Plaintiffs and Opposite Party No. 4 is Defendant No.1. The present revision is directed against order dated 09.02.2025 passed by the said Court rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner-Defendant No.2 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

2. The facts, briefly stated are that one Bibhuti Narayan Singhsamant filed a suit for partition against the deceased Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 registered as C.S. No.82 of 2004 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nayagarh. The suit was decreed on compromise on 16.12.2014, inter alia, on the condition that if any of the parties intended to sell his share of the property, he shall give preference to the other co-sharers before selling it to strangers. On 18.05.2020, Defendant No.1 sold the suit property, which was allotted in his favour, to the Petitioner by a registered sale deed. On 12.01.2021, Plaintiff No.1(a), claiming to be the attorney holder of his father filed C.S. No. 6 of 2021 in the Court below, inter alia, seeking the relief of cancellation of the sale deed dated 18.05.2020.

3. The original Plaintiff expired on 10.04.2021, whereupon the present Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 were substituted in his place on 17.11.2023. The Petitioner- Defendant No.2, filed an application on 17.07.2024 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. on the ground that the same is barred by law. By order dated 09.02.2025, the Court below rejected the application.

4. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned Senior Counsel with Miss P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3.

5. Mr. Dash would argue that the suit, as filed, was not maintainable being filed by a Power of Attorney Holder who was not authorized to deal with the suit property. The Power of Attorney lost its validity upon the death of the Plaintiff-principal. Though the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 were substituted, yet the relief claimed being cancellation of the sale deed dated 18.05.2020, is also barred by limitation.

6. Mr. Dash elaborates his argument by submitting that the contesting Opposite Parties were substituted on 17.11.2023, but the sale deed in question was executed on 18.05.2020. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for filing a suit to cancel an instrument is three years. Further, as per Section-21 of the Limitation Act, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted from the date of their substitution. Viewed thus, the plaint must be held barred by limitation.

7. Per contra, Mr. B. Mohanty submits that the original plaintiff having expired, it is no longer open to the Petitioner Defendant No.2 to question the validity of the Power of Attorney in question. The substituted Plaintiffs are none other than the son, daughter and widow of the deceased Plaintiff. Therefore, they must be deemed to have had the knowledge of the execution of the sale deed dated 18.05.2020, on 28.11.2020, the date on which the original Plaintiff acquired knowledge about execution of the sale deed. Mr. Mohanty therefore submits that the impugned order warrants no interference.

8. Though both parties have also argued with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, this Court does not deem it necessary to go into the same in detail, as it has not been disputed that rejection of the plaint can be sought for on the grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to 11(d) of CPC. It would be