The court established that limitation must be determined through evidence, and a fresh cause of action arose only from the execution of the sale deed in 2021.

For the petitioner : Mr. Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr. Debanjan Das, Advocate Mr. S. Mukherjee, Advocate For the respondent no.1 : Mr. Anmole Prasad Senior Advocate Mr. Dipankar Deb, Advocate For the respondent nos. 2(a) to 2(f) : Mr. Rishav Karnani, Advocate Mr. Debabrata Sarkar, Advocate Judgment on : 25.08.2025 Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:

1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 24 October, 2024 dismissing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908.

2. Briefly, the suit is for declaration and for consequential reliefs pertaining to a partnership firm. The firm was running a cinema hall ‘Kanchan Cinema’ since 1954. Thereafter, the partnership was reconstituted in 1967 with some minor changes in the composition of the partners. The partnership firm comprised of the Mintris, i.e. the group of petitioners, the Shakbpas and Pangdasangs being the other two families of whom the respondent no. 1 is the last surviving heir and partner. The partnership firm carried on business until 2007 when the business of the firm closed down. Admittedly, no formal dissolution or distribution of the partnership assets has ever taken place.

3. It is alleged that disputes arose in 2007 when the Mintris surreptitiously mutated their names in the Records of Rights and fraudulently dealt with the immoveable property of the firm. The respondent no. 1 had challenged such mutation, but the same was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kalimpong.

4. Thereafter, the Mintris purported to sell the partnership asset behind the back of the other partners, belonging to the partnership firm by executing a sale deed on 21 October 2021 in favour of the respondent no. 2 herein (also the defendant no. 19 i.e. Creative Associates) who it is alleged had colluded with the Mintris to defraud the respondent no. 1 and the family of the Shakbpas being the respondent nos. 3 and 4. In this background, the respondent no. 1 filed this suit for declaration of title and cancellation of the deed of sale. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint and dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by law and the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action. By the impugned order, the application was rejected which resulted in the filing of this application.

5. The primary ground raised in seeking dismissal of the suit was limitation. It is contended by the petitioner that the relief of declaration claimed in the suit could have only been filed within a period of three years when the right to sue first arose i.e. in 2007 when the plaintiff for the first time was made aware of the Mintris refusal to accept the status of the suit premises as partnership property. As such, the period of limitation to file any such suit challenging the validity of the status of the suit property expired in 2010. No fresh cause of action could have arisen upon the execution of the sale deed in 2021.The plaintiff had full knowledge and right to sue as far back as in 2007 but chose to file this suit in 2024 which was hopelessly barred by limitation. The letter of the respondent no. 1 questioning the validity of the mutation executed by the Mintris could not have given rise to any cause of action. In support of such contention, the petitioner relies on the decisions in Raghwendra Sharan Singh Versus Ram Prasanna Singh (2020)16 SCC 601, Rajendra Bajoria And Others v. Hemant Kumar Jalan And Others 2022 (12) SCC 641 at para 14-19, Nikhila Divying Mehta & Anr. versus Hitesh P. Sangvi & Ors. 2025 INSC 485 at para 15-19, 24-27.

6. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that disputes arose in

2007 whe