ORDER :

VIVEK JAIN, J.

The present petition has been filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court dated 14.08.2023, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 filed by the present petitioners-defendants on all grounds, except on the ground of valuation and Court fees and granted liberty to the plaintiffs to correct the valuation and pay the Court fees accordingly.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the suit was not maintainable at all and therefore, the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint altogether and on this ground the impugned order passed by the trial Court is put to challenge and prayer is made to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit was not at all maintainable and it was the fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC so as to save the parties from unnecessary trial of the suit. It is argued that in appropriate case the Court should exercise the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, rather than forcing the parties into unnecessary trial of a suit which clearly is barred by law.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff - respondent No.1 seeking declaration of title and challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the present petitioners- defendants No.10 to 16. It is argued that the suit has been filed in the year 2022 and challenge is made to the sale deed executed in favour of defendants No.10 to 16 by the defendants No.1 to 8. The plaintiff is the sister of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.3 to 8 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. In this manner, defendant Nos.1 to 8 are brothers and nephews of the plaintiff and defendant No.9 is the sister's son of the plaintiff.

5. It is argued that the sale deed(s)executed by defendants No.1 to 8 in favour of the petitioners being defendants No.10 to 16 have been challenged in the year 2022, but in the entire plaint, the date of the sale deed is not mentioned and therefore, it cannot be inferred that the limitation in the present case is a mixed question of law and fact so as to be decided in trial after evidence. It would have been a mixed question of law and fact if the date of sale deed had been disclosed and any explanation had been put forth to challenge the sale deed at this point of time. It is argued that the sale deed(s) in favour of the petitioners are of the year 2012 and the suit has been filed after 10 years and just to get over limitation the dates of the sale deed have not been disclosed in the plaint and therefore, the trial Court could not have held that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.

6. It is further argued that the suit is barred by law because the land has been subject matter of acquisition under Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 (for short referred to as ‘Act of 1957’). It is argued that under the Act of 1957, Notification under Section 7(1) was issued on 13.08.2020 and even the Notification under Section 10, which relates to vesting of the land in the Government was issued on 06.08.2021, whereas the suit has been filed in the year 2022. It is argued that the land having been vested in the Central Government, now the plaintiff can only sue for share in compensation and the compensation is determined as per Section 14 of Act of 1957 and any dispute as to the person entitled to receive compensation has to be raised under Section 17(2) before the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1957.It is further argued that as per Section 26 of Act of 1957, civil suit is barred and therefore, the suit was clearly barred by law and the trial Court has gravely erred in overlooking this important aspect of the case.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Sandeep vs. Suchita and others 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13281,