The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue first accrues when the fact first comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and if a suit is filed beyond the limitation period, it can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant-petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad dismissing the application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent in a suit titled Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Om Parkash and Others.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis, and as are discernible from reading of the plaint, are that the defendant-petitioners filed a civil suit against the plaintiff-respondent that they were owners in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of the sale deed bearing document/vasika No.12549 dated 24.02.1983 and that the plaintiff-respondent herein had tried to encroach upon the land in question. The suit filed by the defendant- petitioners was dismissed by the Trial Court, however, the appeal preferred by them was allowed vide judgment dated 17.02.2007 (Annexure P-1). The plaintiff-respondent herein (being defendant in that suit) preferred a second appeal to this Court being RSA No.3927 of 2007 which second appeal was dismissed on 04.04.2011 (Annexure P-2). Against the judgment dated 04.04.2011 passed by this Court, the plaintiff-respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition (C) No.418 of 2012 which was also dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure P-3).

3. Along with the litigation in the civil court, proceedings regarding sanction of the mutation were also going on between the parties. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ballabgarh vide order dated 28.03.2008 did not sanction the mutation in favour of the defendant-petitioners. However, their appeal was allowed by the Collector, Faridabad vide order dated 13.03.2012. The appeal by the plaintiff-respondent against order dated 13.03.2012 was dismissed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division vide order dated 07.02.2014. The plaintiff-respondent preferred a revision before the Financial Commissioner and vide order dated 06.07.2015 the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner were set aside and the order passed by the Assistant Collector was upheld. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, the defendant-petitioners herein preferred CWP No.20479 of 2015 in this Court which was allowed vide order dated 22.05.2017 (Annexure P-4) holding the order passed by the Financial Commissioner to be not sustainable in the eyes of law and was hence set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff-respondent herein preferred a Letters Patent Appeal No.2137 of 2017 and vide order dated 09.11.2017 the same was also dismissed.

4. The plaintiff-respondent herein thereafter filed the present civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction stating therein that the defendant-petitioners herein are illegally and unlawfully trying to encroach and construct over the land in dispute. In para 13 of the plaint (Annexure P-7) it was stated as under :

13. That the cause of action for filing the present suit accrued in favour of the plaintiff's department and against the defendants vide order dated 09.11.2017 passed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court. The cause of action further accrued in the first week of October 2018 when the officials of plaintiff's department visited at the suit property and found that the defendant No.1 and 2 are attempting to encroach the suit land on the basis of alleged sale deed and mutation as mentioned above. The cause of action accrued on 15.10.2018 when the defendant No.1 and 2 finally refused to accept the request of the plaintiff's department. Hence this is the date when final cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants which necessitated the institution of pres