ORAL ORDER

1. Since the short issue involved in the present application, the same is heard and finally decided.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, rejecting the application below Exh.16 in Special Civil Suit No.339 of 2013 (New Regular Civil Suit No.1475/2015) filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”), the present revision application is filed.

3. The plaintiffs have filed the Special Civil Suit No.339 of 2013 for cancellation of the Power of Attorney as well as the sale deed registered on 18.03.2003. From the plaint, it is reflected that the Power of Attorney is dated 24.03.2000. However, in the prayer clause, the date of Power of Attorney is not mentioned.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the aforesaid sale deed is executed in view of the forged and fabricated Power of Attorney in favour of the deceased Shankarbhai Prahladbhai Patel by the defendant no.3 (applicant no.1 herein).

5. Learned advocate Mr.Parthiv Shah appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC below Exh.14 seeking rejection of the plaint, however, the same has been rejected by the court below, which has constrained the the applicant to file the present revision application. He has submitted that the suit filed by the applicant is barred by limitation since it is filed beyond the period of 3 years, as contemplated under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Shah, while pointing out to the averments made in the plaint, more particularly paragraph no.3, has submitted that the plaintiffs were very well having the knowledge about the forged Power of Attorney in the year 2008 itself since they had filed the complaint on 11.04.2008, which ultimately resulted into the summery report, which was granted by the concerned court on 17.04.2013.

6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Shah has further submitted that as per the averments made in paragraph no.3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that they came to know about such Power of Attorney only in the year 2011 and in view of Letters Patent Appeal No.884 of 2011, which was filed against the order passed in Special Civil Application No.9327 of 2006 with regard to mutation of entry proceedings. It is submitted that the aforesaid averments made in paragraph no.3 of the plaint are absolutely concocted in order to frustrate the limitation period. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives & Others, (2020) 7 SCC 366 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanjibhai Bhagwanjibhai Patel vs. Nanduben Shamjibhai Sorathiya Through P.O.A., Dharmesh P. Trivedi, 2013 (1) GLR 51 and has submitted that the plaint deserves to be rejected since the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation of 3 years.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dixit appearing for the respondent nos.1, 3, 3.3, 3.4 and 4 has submitted that the revision application is not required to be entertained since the plaintiffs had filed the suit in the year 2013 after they came to know that the proceedings in Letters Patent Appeal, which are pending before the High Court with regard to entries in revenue record. It is submitted that the Power of Attorney dated 24.03.2000 is forged pursuant to which the sale deed has been executed on 18.03.2003 and hence, the plaint may not be rejected.

8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

9. The facts narrated in the plaint, would suggest that the suit has been filed on 25.06.2013 seeking declaration for setting aside the Power of Attorney dated 24.03.2000 as well as the registered sale deed dated 18.03.2003. In paragraph no.3, a specific averment is made in the plaint that the FIR Nos.M/02 and M/03 dated 17.08.2008 have been filed before S