The main legal point established is that a suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it is time-barred, lacks a cause of action, or seeks to reopen a valid previous partition.

ORDER/JUDGMENT : – This civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant (defendant No. 1) assailing the order dated 22-9-2021 passed in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2015 whereby First Civil Judge Class-I, Gadarwara has rejected his application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”).

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the applicant (defendant No. 1) and respondent No. 2 and 3 (defendants) are real brothers. The respondent No. 1 is plaintiff. The respondent No. 4 is mother of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) and the respondent No. 5 is real brother of respondent No. 1/plaintiff-Varun Anand. A civil suit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 as plaintiff before the trial Court against the petitioner (defendant No. 1) and other respondents No. 2 to 7 seeking declaration, partition and possession as also claiming one-third share, out of one-fourth share of the land of his father situated in Mouza Gadarwara, Settlement No. 119, Patwari Halka No. 18/1 and to declare the entries made in Sanshodhan Panji No. 99 order dated 30-6-2006 as null and void as also Sanshodhan Panji No. 308 order dated 20-7-2014 passed in favour of respondent No. 6/defendant No. 6 (Kapil son of present applicant) as null and void. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff also claimed to decide his share under section 54 of the Code and after partition through the competent Court final decree be passed.

3. The applicant (defendant No. 1) filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code alleging that partition of disputed land had already taken place on 30-6-2006 vide Sanshodhan Panji No. 99, which is binding on the parties because there was written partition executed on 18-9-2005 between legal heirs of Mohanlal Anand, namely, applicant and his brothers, namely, Praveshchand, Gulshan Kumar, Kuldeep Chand. They were enjoying their respective possession according to mutual partition. Thereafter, father of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) himself sold some immovable property. He had not challenged the partition during his lifetime because that partition took place with the consent of all the brothers, therefore, property cannot be partitioned again as per law. Further, the suit is clearly time barred and in absence of any cause of action in favour of plaintiff, the suit is not maintainable, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Admittedly, there is a written mutual partition deed on record which is also pleaded by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) in his plaint. He himself pleaded share of the applicants and other brothers, who are his real uncles. His mother and his own real brothers (respondents No. 4 and 5) have also not challenged the partition deed dated 18-9-2005 and Sanshodhan Panji order dated 30-6-2006, after death of father of the plaintiff, namely, Gulshan Kumar.

5. Earlier, the applicant had filed similar application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code, objecting maintainability of present suit which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 5-5-2016 (Annexure-A/4). Thereafter, the present applicant filed Civil Revision No. 241/2016 before this Hon’ble Court. This Court vide order dated 3-10-2019 (Annexure-A/5) had allowed civil revision and remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the application afresh after considering the objection raised by applicant regarding limitation and cause of action. The trial Court again vide impugned order dated 22-9-2021 again rejected the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. Hence, this civil revision.

6. The applicant challenged the impugned order on the ground that trial Court ought to have held that the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) admitted that in terms of partition dated 18-9-2005 the revenue authorities have also given effect and made entries in the revenue record by Sanshodhan Panji dated 30-6-2006 and the mutual partition signed by father of the respondent N