ORAL ORDER

1. This appeal is arising out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil judge, Sanand, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Civil Suit No.20 of 2023, whereby the suit of the plaintiff- present appellant is dismissed by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a), (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Upon request of learned advocate for the appellant, this appeal is taken up for final hearing.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are as under:- 3.1. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the owners and in possession of agricultural land bearing Khata No.15, Block/Survey No.45 admeasuring about 01-92-23-Hectare Are Square Metres of village Mouje Rathel, Taluka Sanand District Ahmedabad. A registered agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff-appellant and defendant Nos.1 to 4 i.e. present respondents Nos.1 to 4 for the suit land on 07.12.2015, which was registered at the Office of Sub- Registrar, Sanand vide Registration No.560/2016. Defendant No.5 stood as a confirming party in the said agreement to sell as he had paid some bana amount to the father of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared and filed written statement Exhibit-15 and application Exhibit-13 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code and prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation and want of cause of action. The said application was contested by the plaintiff and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the application Exhibit-13 and rejected the plaint invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, appellant is before this Court.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that a registered agreement to sell dated 07.12.2015 for the suit land was executed between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 4 and the defendant No.5 stood as a confirming party. It is further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, defendant Nos.1 to 4 were required to obtain Title Clearance Certificate and after receiving Title Clearance Certificate, within six months, a registered sale deed was to be executed. It is pointed out from the said registered agreement to sell that till Title Clearance Certificate is not obtained by the owners, the time limit shall be extended automatically. It is further pointed out that on 27.10.2016, a public notice in Sandesh Newspaper was published at the instance of defendant No.5 for Title Clearance Certificate and the said notice was replied to by the plaintiff on 29.10.2016 inter alia and objected for the issuance of Title Clearance Certificate . It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation as well as for want of cause of action. It is further submitted that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and submitted that the averments made in the plaint require full-fledged trial and the suit of the plaintiff ought not to have been rejected at the threshold. It is also pointed out that in paragraph No.8 of the plaint, plaintiff has specifically averred that the cause of action for filing of the suit has arisen when the registered agreement to sell dated 07.12.2015 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and also when a notice was issued in Sandesh Newspaper regarding Title Clearance Certificate. Thus, plaintiff has shown cause of action for filing the suit.

5. I have considered the grounds raised in the memo of appeal and the submissions canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant together with the paper-book, which is placed on record during the course of hearing. A registered agreement to sell dated 07.12.2015 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4, wherein defendant No.5 was joined as a confirming party. Defendant No.5