The main legal point established in the judgment is that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the relevant facts to be looked into are the averments in the plaint, and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are irrelevant at that stage.

ORDER

1. The petitioner/defendant has filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( in short 'CPC") being aggrieved by order dated 30.8.2018 passed by Civil Judge Class II Jobat District Alirajpur in civil suit No. 22-A/2018 by which application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Facts of the case in short are that present respondent no.1 has filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deeds dated 30.8.1966 and 13.8.1976 against the petitioner. It is further prayed in the suit that possession of suit land shall also be handed over to the plaintiff. After service of notice upon the petitioners/defendants they have marked their appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed reply of the application.

3. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 30.8.2018 has dismissed the application filed by petitioner. Hence this petition is filed by petitioner before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.1/plaintiff has filed the suit for grant of relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deeds dated 3.8.1966 and 13.8.1976 against the petitioner. As per averments in the suit, father of respondent no.1 Bhuvan Bhil has been granted certain land (including the disputed land) on lease by state government. As per averments made in the suit Ratanlal was Sahukar and suit land was kept mortgaged with Ratanlal. Father and grand-father of Bhuvan Bhil were unable to pay the outstanding dues. Ratanlal has initiated proceedings under Section 165(6) of MP Land Revenue Code (in short "MPLRC"). The said proceedings were decided in favour of Ratanlal and suit land was sold out by sale deeds dated 3.8.1966 and 13.8.1976. After obtaining permission from the Collector Bhuvan Bhil and his legal representatives have initiated proceedings under Section 170B of MP LRC before the SDO and SDO vide order dated 28.2.2015 has found that transfer was bonafide and has dismissed the application. He submits that Section 257 of MPLRC clearly states that no civil court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the matter narrated in this section. Therefore, the trial court has erred in passing the impugned order without considering the factual aspects of the case. He submits that present suit is clearly hit by provisions of Section 170-B and Section 257 of MPLRC. The trial court has wrongly come to the conclusion that civil court is competent to decide the issues whereas the provisions of section 257 of the Code has created clear barrier on entertaining such suit. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated 30.8.2018 be set aside.

5. Learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance upon judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Anita Jain Vs. Dilip Kumar and others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 554 wherein it has been held as under:-

""In light of the aforesaid judgment it can be safely gathered that the plaintiffs were having knowledge of the sale deed which was executed in the year 2010 and therefore, as the limitation provided is only three years for challenging the sale deed, the issue framed by the trial Court in respect of limitation has to be answered in favour of the defendants.

In another case Nanhibai Vs. Govindrao reported in 2006(iii) MPWN 88 in paragraph No.9, this Court has held as under:-

"9. Regarding substantial question of law No. (b) : The gift deed is dated 6-2-1976 and the suit for its cancellation has been filed by the Plaintiff on 6-4-1986. Under Article 59 of the Indian Limitation Act, the prescribed period/of limitation is three years from the date of execution of instrument first become knowledge to the Plaintiff. It is no more in dispute that Ex. D-l gift deed dated 6-2-1976 is very well in the knowledge of the Plaintiff right from the day of its execution and, therefore, the suit for cancellation of document ought to have bee