Claims must clearly disclose cause of action; clever drafting to mask true nature of the claim is impermissible, especially concerning limitation under law.

JUDGMENT:

1. Initially, the applicant/petitioner filed Writ Petition No.23 of 2015 challenging the order 03.01.2015 whereby the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was dismissed by the trial Court. Vide order dated 15.06.2015 in MCA/349/2015, the Writ Petition was converted into Civil Revision Application and was, accordingly, registered. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for final disposal. However, vide order dated 10.07.2015 revision was admitted and the hearing was expedited.

2. Heard learned senior counsel Shri Nitin Sardessai alongwith Shri Vibhav Amonkar for the applicant, Shri Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1. None appeared for the other respondents.

3. Shri Nitin Sardessai would submit that the application for rejection of the plaint was filed on two counts. Firstly, it does not show the cause of action and consequently, it is barred by limitation. He would submit that the plaint shows no cause of action for filing the suit, i.e. right to sue on a particular and specific right accruing in favour of the plaintiff. Secondly, he claimed that even if it is considered that such right accrued to the plaintiff, it first accrued in the year 2002 itself and, therefore, the suit filed in the year 2012 is hopelessly barred. He would submit that the applicant/defendant purchased the suit property vide a sale deed and, accordingly, applied for the inclusion of his name under Section 14 of the Land Revenue Code . The defendant specifically made averments before the Deputy Collector in Land Revenue Code Case No.LRC/GDL/MAR/1/2022 that the property was purchased by the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 15.05.2002 from Mr Anthony Mathias and others and put in possession of the property bearing Survey No.194/2-B alongwith the house existing therein. Since the survey was promulgated and the name of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff is not appearing and the name of the respondent herein was erroneously recorded, the matter was filed under Section 14 (3) of the Land Revenue Code to delete the name of the present respondent no.1 and to include the name of the applicant.

4. Mr Nitin Sardessai then would submit that respondent no.1 filed a written statement before the Deputy Collector and after enquiry, Deputy Collector accepted the contention of the applicant and vide order dated 21.07.2003 directed to delete the name of respondent no.1 and to include the name of the applicant in the occupant's column. The order passed by the Deputy Collector was then challenged by respondents before the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Land Revenue Appeal No.36 of 2011. By judgement dated 07.12.0211, the Appeal was dismissed. He, therefore, would submit that dismissal of Appeal would not give any fresh cause of action to the respondents to file a suit and that too challenging the sale deed of the applicant to be declared as null and void

5. Mr Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Government for the State would submit that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, this Court cannot travel beyond a plaint. A plaint filed in the present matter discloses a specific cause of action as mentioned in paragraph 48 and that such cause of action is continuous. He would submit that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly considered and rejected the application. He then submitted that paragraph 29 of the plaint clearly shows a claim of the plaintiff which has been raised and is to be read with paragraph 48.

6. Rival contentions fall for the consideration of this Court.

7. The applicants herein a