ORDER

1. This Revision under section 115 of the CPC has been preferred by the defendants/applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2022 passed in RCSA No.698-A/2018 by the 22nd District Judge, Indore whereby their application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of the same being barred by time has been rejected.

2. The plaintiff has instituted an action for declaration that the sale deed dated 23.12.2015 executed with respect to the suit land is illegal, null and void and not binding upon him and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit land in any manner. Upon service of summons upon them the defendants filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint submitting that the sale deed was executed on 17.11.2014 whereas the claim has been instituted on 3.7.2018 which is barred by time in view of Article 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act which provides for a period of limitation of three years for seeking cancellation of an instrument. The plaintiff contested the application by filing his reply to the same. The application has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that from the averments as made by plaintiff in the plaint the suit cannot be said to be apparently barred by time.

3. Learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that the sale deed was executed on 17.11.2014 and was registered on 23.12.2015 whereas the suit has been instituted on 3.7.2018 i.e. beyond a period of three years therefrom which is hence barred by time by virtue of Article 58 and 59 to Schedule to the Limitation Act. As per section 3 of the Registration Act, knowledge of sale deed would be deemed to have been acquired by plaintiff on the date of its execution itself and since plaintiff is an executant to the sale deed and has admitted its execution the period of limitation would commence from 17.11.2014. The trial Court hence ought to have rejected the plaint as barred by time. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvind Bhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through LRs and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3310 and of this Court in Sudhir Das v. United Church of D Canada India, Dhar beneficiary and Others, Civil Revision No.41/2019 decided on 18.6.2019.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and have perused the record.

5. As per Article 59 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for instituting a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree is 3 years which begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled first become known to him.

6. In the present case the plaintiff has pleaded that an oral agreement had been entered into between him and the defendants for sale of the suit land for a total consideration of Rs.4,14,04,000/- upon payment of earnest money of Rs.25,00,000/- For the balance sale consideration, postdated cheques had been handed over to the plaintiff and remaining part of the same was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff relied upon the defendants taking advantage of which, on 17.11.2014, defendants 1 and 2 came to his house along with certain persons and asked him to execute an agreement to sale upon which he signed. The plaintiff asked defendants 1 and 2 for a copy of the agreement who stated that the same shall be made over to him after its registration. They assured the plaintiff that the sale deed shall be executed only after payment of the entire sale consideration.

(ii) Later on, the postdated cheques given by defendants to plaintiff were dishonored upon which he approached the defendants, who assured him that they will pay the full amount prior to execution of the sale deed. Since no further amount was paid, the plaintiff contacted his counsel on 20.6.2018, who made efforts for obtaining a copy of the agreement to s