IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that limitation issues require evidence and cannot be decided solely on the plaint's initial averments, emphasizing the need for a holistic reading of the plaint.

JUDGMENT :

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Shri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents.

2. The instant appeal has been converted from "Second Appeal" to "First Appeal From Order" under the previous orders of this Court, inasmuch as, the order impugned is an order of remand passed in civil appeal.

3. The appellant is defendant in Original Suit No.83 of 2022 (Anant Prasad Singh v. Shrivatsa Goswami and others). The suit was filed claiming a decree for declaring a registered gift deed dated 25.05.1968 and another gift deed dated 17.10.1987, registered on 15.01.1988 as null, void ab initio, irrelevant and ineffective, insofar as the plaintiff’s rights are concerned. In the said suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the defendant-appellant which was allowed by the trial court on 22.11.2022. Consequently, the plaint was rejected holding the suit as barred by limitation by invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Against the order of trial court, Civil Appeal No.67 of 2022 (Anant Prasad Singh v. Shrivats Goswami and another) was filed by the plaintiff-respondents which has been allowed by the order impugned dated 06.04.2023 and the matter has been remanded to the trial court to re-register the suit, invite written statement and other objections from the defendants on all aspects including limitation, to frame additional issue on limitation and take a decision on all the issues after leading evidence.

4. Assailing the order impugned, Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that one Girija Devi executed a gift deed dated 25.05.1968 in favour of Vishnu Priya who, later on, executed another gift deed dated 17.10.1987 registered on 15.01.1988 in favour of Shri Purushottam Lal Goswami, i.e. father of the defendant-appellant. He died on 21.02.2017 and the suit in question was filed on 07.02.2022. Reading out the plaint averments especially those contained in paragraph 21 thereof, it is contended that the plaintiff deliberately concealed the date of knowledge of the registered documents and admitted in the plaint itself that earlier attempt of getting the name of the defendant mutated in the revenue records was made ineffective by the plaintiff. He, therefore, submits that by concealing the date about knowledge of registered instruments in the entire plaint, the plaintiff committed breach of the mandatory provisions of Order VI Rule 4 CPC, inasmuch as, the limitation to institute a suit of this nature would be governed by Article 58 of Part III of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1963’) which prescribes a period of three years of limitation from the date when the right to sue first accrues. He submits that principly the case of the plaintiff defending rejection of the plaint as barred by limitation is based upon subsequent revealing of fraud or concealment, therefore, in view of Section 17(1)(b) of the Act of 1963, knowledge of such concealment of fraud, when read with Order VII Rule 4 CPC, the plaintiff was bound to disclose the date of knowledge in the plaint and, in absence thereof, the plaint was liable to be rejected. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saranpal Kaur Anand v. Praduman Singh Chandhok, (2022) 8 S.C.C. 401; another judgment of Delhi High Court in Smt. Razia Begum v. Delhi Development Authority & ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4628 and judgment of this Court in Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and others v. State of U.P., 2002 (4) AWC 2686.

5. Per contra, Shri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel refers to ‘paragraph 14’ of the plaint and submits that previous proceedings of mutation were not based upon registered instruments, declaration whereabout has been claimed in the suit, rather the mutation was claimed on the basis of long possession only and it is, for t