A plaint should not be rejected unless it manifestly discloses no cause of action or is vexatious; here, the court found it did disclose a cause of action based on registered title.

ORDER (ORAL)

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The matter is taken up before issuance of notice. Heard Mr. T. B. Thapa, learned Senior Counsel for the defendant nos. 1 and 2 (the revisionists). The revisionists are aggrieved by rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC).

2. The suit was instituted by Pathing Gumpa Managing Committee as the plaintiff (respondent no.1) against the revisionists as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the District Registrar as defendant nos. 3 and 4 (the respondent nos. 2 and 3). The application for rejection of the plaint was on two primary grounds. The first ground was that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the second ground was that it is barred by law of limitation.

3. During the course of the extensive arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists it is submitted that clever drafting has given the plaint an illusion of a cause of action. However, on close scrutiny it is a vexatious and mischievous suit without any cause of action.

4. Taking this Court to the pleadings as well as the prayers in the plaint the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prayer (i) and (ii) are covered by Article 58 and 59 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 and therefore, barred by limitation. It is further submitted that prayer (iii) and (iv) would be covered by Article 113 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 and therefore, also barred by time as the plaint was filed in December, 2020 and admittedly the cause of action arose in the year 2015.

5. The judgment of the Supreme Court in M.T.W. Tenzing Namgyal & Ors. vs. Motilall Lakhotia & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 1 was cited by the learned Senior Counsel to impress upon this Court that the Trial Court in a case of this nature was bound to enquire or investigate the question of title and could not have decreed the suit merely on the basis of the entries in the revenue records.

6. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon a paragraph in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Nagar Palika, Jind vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate, (1995) 3 SCC 426 in which judgment of Perry vs Clissold, 1907 AC 73: 76 LJ CP 19 has been quoted as under:

'It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the statute of limitation applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title. '

The aforesaid view was approved by this Court in the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander [AIR 1968 SC 1165 : (1968) 3 SCR 163] . This Court said in connection with the plaintiff of that case that he being in peaceful possession was entitled to remain in possession and only the State could evict him. It was further said that the action of the Society was a violent invasion over the possession of the plaintiff. It was pointed out:

'... the law as it stands in India the plaintiff could maintain a possessory suit under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act in which title would be immaterial or a suit for possession within 12 years in which the question of title could be raised.'

7. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon another rendition of the Supreme Court in C.S. Ramaswamy vs. V.K Sentil and Ors, AIR 2022 SC 4724. He drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 7 and 8 thereof which in fact is the qu