Suits challenging transactions based on alleged forgery filed after the limitation period are barred; knowledge of transactions begins limitation period.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 57 of 2012 To CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 66 of 2012 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= KANJIBHAI BHAGWANJIBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s) Versus NANDUBEN SHAMJIBHAI SORATHIYA THROUGH POA DHARMESH P TRIVEDI & 7 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TATTVAM K PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s) : 1 - 8.

MR JINESH H KAPADIA FOR MR ASHISH H SHAH for Opponent(s) : 1 - 7.

MR VIRAL K SHAH for Opponent(s) : 8.

========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 30/04/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.00. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of revision applications and are between the same parties, all these revision applications are decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order.

2/23 JUDGMENT 2.00. Civil Revision Application No. 57 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original defendant No.1 challenging the impugned order passed by the learned trial court – learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Ex.20 in Regular Civil Suit No.305 of 2010 dtd.29/12/2011, by which the learned trial court has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioner herein – original defendant No.1 to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation.

2.01. Civil Revision Application No. 58 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original defendant No.1 challenging the impugned order passed by the learned trial court – learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Ex.20 in Regular Civil Suit No.307 of 2010 dtd.29/12/2011, by which the learned trial court has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioner herein – original defendant No.1 to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation.

2.02. Civil Revision Application No. 59 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original defendant No.1 challenging the impugned order passed by the learned trial court – learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Ex.20 in Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 2010 dtd.29/12/2011, by which the learned trial court has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioner herein – original defendant No.1 to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) 3/23 JUDGMENT of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation.

2.03. Civil Revision Application No. 60 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original defendant No.1 challenging the impugned order passed by the learned trial court – learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Ex.20 in Regular Civil Suit No.310 of 2010 dtd.29/12/2011, by which the learned trial court has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioner herein – original defendant No.1 to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred by la