The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC can be justified based on grounds such as limitation, lack of jurisdiction, and improper valuation, as supported by the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and case laws.

JUDGMENT :

VANDANA KASREKAR, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present civil revision challenging the order dated 22.11.2018, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 109-A/2017, whereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

2. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction, partition, possession and for setting aside the sale deed. As per plaint allegation, a suit land was recorded in the name of Monai Church of Canada Missionary, Dhar India and Smt. E.P. Das Wd/o Dr. Ratnagar Peeter Das being the Director thereof, was in possession and management of the said Missionary. The plaintiffs have further stated that they are the daughters of Late Ratnagar Das and there was one son Sudhir Das (Petitioner) also. It was further alleged that the mother of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 died on 12.03.2012 and before her death she was suffering from serious diseases. It was further stated that the petitioner sold the suit land to the other respondents by registered sale-deed dated 17.06.2009 through the attorney of Smt. E.P. Das.

3. After receiving the summons, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and further that the suit has not been properly valued.

4. The respondents have filed their reply denying the allegations made in the application. The Court below, after hearing both the parties has dismissed the application vide order dated 22.11.2018 being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues that the order passed by the Court below is illegal and contrary to law. He further submits that the Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. He further submits that on the basis of plaint allegations itself, the suit is bared by limitation. He submits that the registered sale-deed has been executed on 17.06.2009 whereas, the present suit has been filed in the Year 2017 i.e. after a period of more than 8 years while the limitation for challenging the registered sale-deed is 3 years. He further submits that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed a civil suit for cancellation of the registered sale-deed. However, the suit land is already a diverted land and constructions have already been raised on the said land and, therefore, the market value of the same is more than crores and the trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. As the land is already a diverted land, therefore, valuing the suit on the basis of land revenue, is not maintainable. He further submits that the said civil suit has been filed against the dead person, which is nullity. He further submits that earlier also a suit has been filed regarding the said suit property for declaration of title of the suit land. The said suit was dismissed on 20.12.2014 and against the said judgment and decree, a First Appeal No. 177/2005 was filed before this Court which was also dismissed on 18.10.2005 and, therefore, on the basis of this judgment also the present suit is not maintainable. He submits that the trial Court has not at all considered all these grounds and rejected the application of the petitioner only on the ground that the grounds raised in the application is mixed question of law and facts and can be decided only after leading evidence of both the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments passed in the case of Karim Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2009) ILR (M.P.) 3167, Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2009 (4) MPLJ 315, Laxminarayan vs. Daryaobai, 1997 (1) MPWN 72, Kapooribai vs. Bhagwansingh, 2001 (1) MPWN 65 and Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar a