22002266::BBHHCC--GGOOAA::5555--DDBB vinita IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2025. PRATAPSINHA WAMANRAO RANE SARDESSAI REP. POA CHANDRASHEKHAR P. R. SARDESSAI AND ANR. .... Appellants.

Vs.

M/S DIESH HOLDING PVT. LTD AND 13 ORS. …. Respondents.

Mr Parag Rao and Mr Akhil Parrikar, Advocates for the Appellants.

Mr Deepak Gaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr Ryan Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

Mr Uday Singh Rane Sardessai, Respondent No.2 present in person.

CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

DATED : 14th January 2026. ORDER (Per SUMAN SHYAM, J)

1. This First Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Bicholim Goa in Special Civil Suit No. 5/2023/A, rejecting the plaint filed by the Appellants as plaintiffs, by invoking the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. It appears from a perusal of the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 that the learned Trial Court has also accepted the plea raised by the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 that there was no cause of action to file the suit.

2. The impugned order has been assailed by the Appellants’ primarily on the two counts. Firstly, that a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by reading of the plaint and not with the help of any extraneous material. But in the present case, the learned Trial Court has relied upon documents filed by the Appellants which were not a part of the plaint. Secondly, the learned Trial Court, having initially rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by order dated 24.04.2024, could not have reversed/recalled the said order or rejected the plaint on the ground that suit was barred by law of limitation merely by relying upon the additional documents filed by the plaintiff on 26.02.2024.

3. It is the submission of Mr Rao that the documents filed by the Appellants were available on record, even on the date on which, the order dated 24.04.2024 was passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error by entertaining the review petition and reviewing the order dated

24.04.2024.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has further argued that the Court below had observed that the Appellants had knowledge of the deeds of sale executed in the year 2007 atleast on 25.09.2018. If that be so, going by the observation of the trial Court, accounting the relaxation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court pertaining to COVID period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the suit, which was instituted in the month of April 2023, could have been filed on any date or on or before 25.09.2023. Viewed from that angle also, submits Mr Rao, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and the impugned order is liable to be interfered with on such count alone.

5. Responding to the above submission, Mr Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 3 has argued that it is by the own showing of the plaintiffs that they had knowledge about the execution of the deeds of sale prior to 25.09.2018. Therefore, in view of mandate of Article 58 of the Limitation Act 1963, the suit of the plaintiffs was evidently barred under the Law of Limitation and hence, the plaint has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court.

6. The Respondent no. 2 has appeared in person and submitted that there is no legally enforceable right of the plaintiffs involved in the suit and that the plaintiffs did not have any cause of action for filing the suit. In support of his above argument, the Respondent no. 2 has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Devan Gope@ Devnandan Yadav & ors. Vs Pavitri Devi &

ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14811 of 2024 dated 19.11.2025).

7. Mr Gaonkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that his client is the purchaser of the su