The court ruled that even if one relief in a suit is barred by limitation, the entire plaint cannot be rejected, especially when there are multiple reliefs and triable issues exist.

Order :

RENUKA YARA, J.

This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1772 of 2022 in O.S.No.139 of 2022, dated 08.02.2024, wherein, a petition filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground of law of limitation and res-judicata has been dismissed.

2. Heard M/s. Vankina, Allu & Partners, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the revision petition are that respondent filed the main suit seeking declaration of registered Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document No.2928 of 1999, dated 27.10.1999 and registered sale deed vide document No.27183 of 2006, dated 22.12.2006 as null and void and not binding on respondent with respect to suit schedule property consisting of agricultural land in Sy.No.727/A1, extent Ac.0-20 Gts. and Sy.No.732/A2, extent Ac.1-02 Gts., total admeasuring Ac.1-04 Gts., situated at Kesampet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as per the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. After filing of said suit, the revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint for lack of cause of action and the suit being barred by limitation. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent has knowledge about the disputed document from the year 2005 onwards. Further, the order of the Joint Collector has been passed 11 years ago whereas by employing clever drafting, the suit has been filed. The relief for declaration of any document as null and void has limitation of three years but the suit is filed after lapse of the same. When the case of respondent is considered under Article 58 of LIMITATION ACT , the suit is barred by limitation within three years from the date of knowledge of the document. Further, it is pleaded that the suit is undervalued, that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of registration of Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney and therefore, the suit lacks merits and is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC.

4. The respondent filed counter affidavit in I.A denying the averments in the affidavit referring to each paragraph of the petition. Further, the merits of the case of respondent are re- stated which are not necessary for disposal of the present revision petition. Suffice it to say that the primary contention of the respondent is that the revision petitioner herein does not have any right, title and interest in the suit schedule property through the alleged registered Agreement of sale-cum-GPA and sale deed.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between Nikhila Divyang Mehta and another v. Hitesh P. Snaghvi and others , 2025 INSC 485, wherein, it is held as follows:

“Lastly, the first appellate Court has ruled that in the suit, the plaintiff has claimed different reliefs and even if the plaint is barred by limitation in respect of one of the reliefs, it cannot be rejected in toto. The aforesaid submission is also without substance as upon the plain reading of the prayers made in the plaint, it is apparent that the primary relief claimed therein is to declare the Will and the Codicil to be null and void and also all subsequent proceedings thereto. In addition to it, the plaintiff has claimed permanent injunction. The other reliefs are dependent upon the first relief and c