Digitally signed by

VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY

RAJGURU

VIJAY

Date:

RAJGURU 2025.12.22

16 :33:18

+0530

27-cra-693-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

varsha

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 693 OF 2023

Mohan Pandurang Dhule and Ors … Applicants

vs.

Harishchandra Dhehu Dhule and Ors … Respondents

Mr. Rahul S. Kate, for the Applicant. Ms. Aruna Koli, for the Respondent.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 11th DECEMBER 2025

ORDER:

1. This application is filed by defendant nos. 1 to 4 to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting their application under

Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’).

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on a plain reading of the plaint and the cause of action pleaded in the suit, the suit is barred by limitation. He submits that the prayer clause in the suit seeks a declaration of ownership rights. However, the plaintiffs were aware of the mutation entry no. 1139 of 1^st April 1991, which was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs as pleaded in paragraph no.4 of the plaint. However, the suit is filed by the respondents,

contending that the cause of action arose on 15^th October 2021 when defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 sought to perform a puja on the land based on the documents executed in their favour. He submits that, according to the plaintiffs, they were aware of the mutation entry, which had existed since 1991. As per the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiffs were aware of the mutation entry. He therefore submits that the cause of action as pleaded is only for the purpose of claiming that the suit is within limitation.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, submits that if the pleadings in the plaint are read as a whole, the plaintiffs did have knowledge in the year 1991. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation on plain reading of the plaint. To support his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji(Deceased) through Lrs Vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through Lrs and Ors¹. He submits that based on the date of the knowledge appearing from the plaint, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. He relies upon the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 8 of the judgment. He submits that, in the said case, the knowledge was derived from the revenue record, in which the names of the plaintiffs

1 [2022] 153 AIILR 680 appeared as cultivators who claimed to be in possession. Hence, the suit filed more than 22 years after the entries in the revenue records was held to be barred by limitation. He submits that, even in the present case, based on the revenue record, the plaintiffs would be deemed to have had knowledge as of the date of the revenue record and, thus, the plaintiffs' claim deserves to be rejected at the threshold.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs supports the impugned order. She submits that the pleadings with regard to the knowledge about the revenue entries are in paragraphs nos. 5 and 6 of the plaint. She submits that a reference in the earlier paragraphs is a factual averment to support the contentions of the plaintiffs. She points out that in paragraph no. 5, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they learnt about the entries only in 2021. She therefore submits that the trial court has rightly held that the issue of limitation cannot be decided at the preliminary stage, as it would be a mixed question of law and fact.

5. I have carefully perused the pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiffs have pleaded the date of knowledge of the execution of the sale deed in favour of defendants nos. 2, 3, and 4 as sometime in October 2021. Thereafter, the plaintiffs pleaded that on 19^th October

2021, defendant no. 1 filed a police complaint against the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' statement was recorded on 8^th November 2021. The plaintiffs thereafter contended that the sale deed of 1980 and the