ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2010 passed in IA No. 1015 of 2019 in OS No. 2052 of 2011 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to reject the plaint on the grounds of limitation and non-disclosure of cause of action, was dismissed. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

2. The briefly stated facts are - Plaintiff is the 1st respondent herein. Suit OS No. 2052 of 2011 was filed to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit property, to delivery of possession of the property and to declare the registered GPA Doc. No. 83/1991, dated 11.2.1991, registered at Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, as null and void and impersonated and on decreeing the suit, to send the decree to the concerned Sub-Registrar to enter the same in the EC register. In the suit, the case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house property bearing Plot No. 75, H. No. 8-5-195, consisting of two rooms and open place in Survey No. 6/3, situated at Weaker Section Colony, Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (for short “the suit property”) allotted by A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, vide Patta Certificate in Proceedings No. RC/L3/196/75-LWS, dated 12.10.1978, and delivered possession to him. That he is paying electricity charges to the authorities concerned in respect of the suit property till date. While so, the revision petitioner-1st defendant, without any manner of right, title or interest over the suit property, created GPA bearing Doc. No. 83 of 1991, dated 11.2.1991, allegedly as if executed by plaintiff in favour of 3rd defendant. Thereafter, based on the said created GPA, the 3rd defendant had executed sale deed, bearing Doc. No. 11283 of 1993, dated 29.9.1993 in favour of 2nd defendant, who in turn again executed registered GPA vide Doc. No. 4367 of 2011, dated 10.6.2011, in favour of 1st defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that he never executed any GPA Doc. No. 83 of 1991 in favour of the 3rd defendant and such a document has been forged, created and impersonated one. Hence, the suit for the reliefs noted above.

3. The interlocutory application was filed by the 1st defendant on the ground that the alleged GPA Doc. No. 83/1991 pertains to the year 1991, whereas the suit is instituted in the year 2011, i.e. after lapse of 20 years, therefore, the suit filed is beyond the period of limitation. It was also pleaded that as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, registration of a document itself is a notice to the stake holders and the plaintiff cannot plead ignorance of the document of the year 1991.

4. The said interlocutory application was dismissed on two grounds firstly; the plea of constructive notice is only a defence and can be decided in the suit and secondly; the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the issue raised will have to await the trial of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the 1st defendant submitted that plaintiff in his plaint vaguely submitted that he came to know about execution of the alleged GPA Doc. No. 83/1991, in the year 2011 and immediately he filed the suit. It is further contended that when once a registered document is executed, it is a constructive notice to all concerned and per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Limitation Act’) the limitation starts from the date of presentation of the plaint. It is also contended that the Trial Court has not considered the matter earnestly though the facts patently appear to suggest that the suit