The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) must be based exclusively on the averments within the plaint. Issues concerning limitation and the bar under Order II Rule 2 are often mixed questions of fact and law, necessitating trial rather than summary rejection.

JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants in revision (revisionists), Shri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 (respondent) and Shri Neeraj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the proforma respondents no. 2, 3 and 4.

THE CHALLENGE

2. The instant revision under Section 115 CPC at the instance of defendants in O.S. No. 394 of 2023 (re-numbered as 22 of 2023), raises challenge to the order dated 24.01.2025, whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Agra has rejected an application 31-C filed on behalf of the revisionists under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, consequence whereof is that the plaint of the suit survives as on date.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The property in dispute was allotted in favour of the revisionists by Awas Vikas Parishad on 02.01.1993/28.02.2023. The allotment was cancelled and a fresh allotment was made in favour of the respondent on 03.03.1993. The revisionists earlier filed an Original Suit No. 252 of 1993 claiming relief for declaring the auction made in favour of respondent as null and void and for declaring the allotment made earlier in favour of the revisionists as valid. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 18.10.1996. The decree was put into execution, wherein the respondent filed objections under Section 47 CPC. The same were rejected, against which a revision was preferred, which was also dismissed and Writ-C No. 9100 of 2015 filed by him was also dismissed on 16.02.2015.

4. After dismissal of the said writ petition, a suit being O.S. No. 296 of 2015 was filed by the respondent seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated 18.10.1996. The plaint of the said suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC holding the suit as barred by limitation. Civil Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed and now the matter is pending before this Court in the form of Second Appeal.

5. Another suit being O.S. No. 394 of 2023 (re-numbered as 22 of 2023) giving rise to this revision was filed by the respondent with a prayer to declare the allotment order dated 28.02.2023 passed in favour of the revisionists as illegal, invalid, void and liable to be recalled, set aside and quashed. A further prayer was made to restrain the defendants in the suit, i.e. the Awas Vikas Parishad and its officials, from executing any sale deed and delivering possession in favour of the revisionist.

6. In the meantime, a fresh allotment was made and a sale deed was also executed in favour of the revisionists on 05.04.2023 in execution of the decree drawn in previous O.S. No. 252 of 1993 and challenge laid to the execution proceedings at the behest of the Awas Vikas Parishad was turned down upto Hon'ble Supreme Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONISTS

7. It is contended on behalf of the revisionists that, based upon the finality attached not only to the allotment but also the sale deed executed in furtherance of order passed by the executing court even before institution of the suit giving rise to the present revision, the suit is barred by law and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the plaint has been amended by the respondent and the relief which has now been claimed by way of amendment, could be claimed even at the time of filing of earlier suit in the year 2015 and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Ru