Allegations of fraud can affect limitation in civil suits and warrant careful consideration rather than outright dismissal of plaints.

1. The instant revisional application arises out of a suit, instituted initially for partition, for declaration that the plaintiffs had fifty per cent share in the suit property and for consequential reliefs.

2. Subsequently the plaintiffs sought an amendment, inter alia seeking to introduce a declaration that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had no right, title or interest to transfer the entire premises no. 20, Gopal Chandra Mukherjee Road, Kolkata - 2, exceeding their 50% of share, in favour of the defendant no. 6 who had not acquired any interest more than 50% in the said property by virtue of the said deed of conveyance dated 09.11.1992, and for incorporating the corresponding facts. The said amendment was allowed by a different portion of the order than that impugned herein.

3. On the other hand, the present petitioner, being defendant no. 6 in the suit, had filed an application under Order VII R.11, read with Order I R.10(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a rejection of the plaint as far as the said defendant was concerned and / or expunction of itself from the suit. The said application was rejected on contest. The present revision has been preferred by the defendant no. 6 against such portion of the impugned order, whereby its prayer for rejection of plaint was refused.

4. The suit was originally filed for the following reliefs: -

a) "A decree be passed in preliminary form for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds declaring the 50% share of the plaintiffs in respect of schedule 'a' and 'b' properties and also 40% share of consideration money for rs.8,500/- out of schedule 'c' property mentioned in the schedules of the plaint;

b) A final decree for partition of the entire suit properties by metes and bounds to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of the preliminary decree with delivery of possession therein by the help of partition commissioner to be appointed by the ld. court;

c) A decree for partition and declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the undivided 50% share of the premises no. 20, Gopal Chandra Mukherjee Road [schedule a(iv)] of the plaint and the deed of conveyance between the defendant nos. 1 and 2 with the defendant no. 6 is not binding upon the plaintiffs;

d) Receiver;

e) Inventory and account, decree be passed;

f) Temporary injunction;

g) Permanent injunction;

h) Order and / or decree be passed under O.2 R.2 of the c.p. code;

i) Cost of the suit;

j) Any other relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled in law and in equity."

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the adjudication of the suit, at least as regards the defendant no. 6 / petitioner itself, depends on the decision on relief c), as claimed in the plaint. Since admittedly the registered deed, executed in favour of the present petitioner, was of November 9, 1992 and the suit was filed only in the year 1999, the relief c), challenging the deed of conveyance between the defendant nos. 1 and 2 with the present petitioner, was palpably barred by limitation. It is further argued that, by virtue of Order VII R.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs were duty - bound to disclose the ground upon which exemption from the law of limitation was claimed. As the plaint did not disclose any such ground, the Trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint outright, at least as against the defendant no. 6 / petitioner.

6. It is further argued that, by virtue of Order IV R.1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirement of