Disputed facts on power of attorney scope, sale deeds validity, cause of action, and valuation not adjudicable under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; trial court to frame and decide as preliminary issues first.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. The instant revision has been preferred by the defendant against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun in Original Suit No. 279 of 2025, titled as Anirudh Singh vs. Anupama Prakash and others, whereby the application preferred by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC , i.e., paper no. 26A1 has been rejected.

2. Instant matter was heard earlier on different stages and on 25.09.2025, further proceeding of O.S. No. 279 of 2025 was stayed. Relevant paragraphs of the order dated 25.09.2025 are reproduced herein as under:-

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that plaintiff is nephew of the defendant no. 1 and he has given general power of attorney to the defendant / revisionist on 24.04.2015 and being power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 / revisionist executed five sale deeds.

4. Apart from this, he submits that as per averment made in the plaint power of attorney dated 24.04.2015 was revoked on 29.03.2025, the date after execution of the sale deeds, therefore, there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the suit. He further submits that suit property was undervalued and by taking all these pleas the defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint, however, the same has been rejected and being aggrieved with the same, instant revision has been preferred.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that undisputedly, as per the plaintiff itself registered power of attorney was revoked after execution of the five sale deeds, therefore, for plaintiff there was no cause of action to file suit for cancellation of sale deeds, which were executed prior to the revocation of power of attorney. He further argued that total valuation of the property is approx. Rs. Nine Crore but it was undervalued and the plaintiff valued it only Rs. 24 lakh. He further argued that while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, these two important aspects have not been considered by the trial court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9472 of 2023 (V. Ravikumar Vs. S. Kumar) 2025 INSC 343, particularly, by place reliance to paragraph 8 and submits that if power of attorney is revoked, after execution of sale deed, then no cause of action will arise for institution of suit for cancellation of sale deed .

3. The main contention of the revisionist is that as per the plaint, the power of attorney dated 24.04.2015 was revoked on 25.03.2025, after execution of five sale deeds which are the subject matter of the suit, and, therefore, there is no cause of action to file the suit, and, furthermore the suit was also undervalued and on these two grounds, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been filed, however, the trial court by the order impugned reject the suit and being aggrieved instant civil revision has been filed.

4. On the previous date after hearing at length this Court passed the following order on 19.12.2025.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by respondent / plaintiff seeking declaration of five sale deeds as null and void as the same are forged and also praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

4. Mr. Siddharath Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that suit is not maintainable at all, as the same is filed on fictitious grounds without any substance and in respect of the five sale deeds there is no cause of action except one sale deed. There are five sale deeds, two sale deeds were executed on 21.01.2025 and three sale deeds were executed on 11.02.2025,