By the Court.—This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the ‘C.P.C.’) has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2012 passed by the IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar dismissing civil suit No. 1560 of 2010 (Smt. Kumud Bhargava v. Sudhir Bhargava) under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. as barred by limitation.

2. We have heard Smt. Kumud Bhargava, the plaintiff-appellant (in person) through her husband Sri S.N. Bhargava and Sri Nikhil Agarwal for the defendant-respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the dispute are as under :

The plaintiff-appellant filed civil suit No. 1560 of 2010 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar seeking following reliefs :

“A) That a decree of permanent injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiff against defendant Nos. 1 to 4, thereby restraining the said defendants, their agents, servants, employees, associates, representatives, assigns, etc. from inter meddling, swindling and siphoning the assets/funds left by the deceased, Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Bhargava, as the Will set up by the defendant are forged and fabricated, non existence and non-operative.

B) That it be declared that the alleged Will alleged to have been left by the deceased Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Bhargava, as non-existent and void, as well as nullity.

C) That the cost of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

D) That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.”

4. The suit was filed with the allegations that Sri Kameshwar Prasad Bhargava died on 1.2.1994 and was survived by his widow Smt. Ganga Bhargava, one son Sri Sudhir Bhargava (defendant-respondent No. 1) and two daughters namely; Km. Sushma Bhargava and the plaintiff-appellant Smt. Kumud Bhargava; that defendant-respondent No. 1 Sudhir Bhargava set up a forged and fabricated will dated 11.8.1993 of Shri Kamleshwar Bhargawa; that Mr. Navin Bhargava, the witness was neither friend nor companion of testator and so in normal circumstances, he could not have been the attesting witness and thus the will is shrouded in mystery and creates suspicion; that will does not disclose that the signature of the witness was appended in the presence of testator and all the pages of the will do not bear the signature of the witness; that on death of Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Bhargava, a probate case registered as case No. 44/99/70 (Sudhir Bhargav v. Smt. Ganga Bhargava and others) was filed by Sudhir Bhargava, the respondent but since all the heirs in accordance with the law of succession and inheritance were not impleaded in the said proceedings, as such, the same was devoid of merits and not maintainable, which was bonafidely contested by her; that it was pleaded in paragraph 27 that the cause of action for filing the suit accrued when she received information and knowledge from reliable sources on 9.7.2010 that defendant No. 1 is intermeddling with the assets of the deceased and swindling the funds which was beyond the reach of the plaintiff. Para 27 of the plaint is being reproduced hereunder :

“27. That the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit, as the plaintiff has gained information and knowledge from reliable sources on 9.7.2010, that the defendant No. 1, as intermedeller, is intermeddling with the assets of the deceased and is fully prepared to swindle away the funds beyond the reach of the plaintiff, despite the pendency of probate petition, as such, the cause of action is subsisting each and every day in regard to the right of the plaintiff being at stake, at the motion of defendant No. 1, who is in collusion with his wife and son and his other henchmen, wherefore, the cause of action is subsisting each and every day.”

5. The defendant-respondent No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement denying