IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 if it is barred by limitation, regardless of the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL VERMA, J.

1. The applicants have preferred this civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12-10-2021 passed by the II Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratlam (M.P.) in Civil Suit No. RCS-A/157/2021, whereby an application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the applicants/defendants No. 1 and 2 has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for declaration of title, setting aside and declaring both the gift deeds null and void and for grant of mandatory and perpetual injunction by stating that plaintiff is the owner of land bearing survey No. 550 area 0.470 hectare situated at Village Bibdod and survey No. 251/1 area 0.176 hectare, survey No. 251/2 area 0.115 hectare, survey No. 251/3 area 0.018 hectare, survey No. 251/4 area 0.070 hectare, survey No. 251/5 area 0.101 hectare situated at Village Banjali. There was a property dispute between the parties. For the purpose of dissolving (sic. : resolving) the dispute between them, as per their settlement, plaintiff has executed two gift deeds in respect of the suit land situated at Village Bibdod and Banjali in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2, but actual possession remained with the plaintiff only. Allegedly it was a criminal conspiracy and fraud, which was committed by the applicants/defendants No. 1 and 2, therefore, the plaintiff filed the civil suit.

3. During the pendency of the suit applicants/defendants No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code by stating that civil suit filed for declaration of both the gift deeds as null and void has been filed after a lapse of about three years of executing the alleged gift deeds, therefore, the suit is barred by time and no cause of action is available to the plaintiff and suit deserves to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the applicants by holding that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, hence, the suit cannot be rejected at this stage under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, applicants/defendants No. 1 and 2 have preferred this civil revision.

5. Learned senior counsel for the applicants/defendants No. 1 and 2 submits that learned Court below has failed to appreciate the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Court below has also failed to hold that no cause of action is arise. The trial Court has failed to consider that the civil suit is exclusively barred by limitation. Trial Court has also ignored the objection raised by the applicants regarding the suit valuation and the payment of Court fees. The plaintiff has even not properly valued the suit and Court fees was not paid accordingly, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is bad in law and is not sustainable. Hence, he prays that impugned order be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that the applicants/defendants No. 1 and 2 have played fraud with the respondent No. 1. Limitation is a mix question of law and fact, therefore, it cannot be decided without recording the evidence. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and not deserve for any interference. Hence, the civil revision deserves to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/defendant No. 3 State submits that the Court is free to pass an appropriate order as may be required.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record with due care.

9. The trial Court has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the pet