JUDGMENT :

INTRODUCTION

1. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Bharat Rao and Mr.Yatin Soni, learned Advocates waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective Respondents.

2. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed challenging the Order dated 04.07.2024, passed below Exh.24 and Exh. 21 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Special Civil Suit No. 235 of 2017. By way of the said Order, the Application filed by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short) has been rejected.

3. For the sake of brevity, the parties herein are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.

4. The brief facts leading to the present Civil Revision Application are that the Plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 235 of 2017, seeking a declaration that the sale deed, executed in favour of Defendant No. 3 on 02.02.2007, is not binding upon him, and further, that the said sale deed is illegal, void, and without any valid consideration. In the Suit, the Plaintiff also challenged the agreement to sell executed by Defendant No. 3 in favour of Defendant No. 4 on 24.01.2013, as well as the consequential sale deed executed in favour of Defendant No. 4, praying that both be declared illegal and unenforceable. In addition, the Plaintiff sought to set aside the consent decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2013, dated 04.04.2015.

5. The case of the Plaintiff is that a fraud was perpetrated upon him whereby a sale deed was executed in the year 2007, in favour of Defendant No. 3. It is further alleged that although the Plaintiffs were shown as confirming parties to the subsequent sale deed, dated 02.01.2014, they had been misled and induced to believe that the said document was intended only for the purpose of cancelling the earlier sale deed, dated 02.02.2007. Acting under this belief, the Plaintiffs went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and signed the sale deed, dated 02.01.2014, as confirming parties. The Plaintiff has also sought reliefs for declaration of his 4/5th share in the suit property and a decree of permanent injunction in respect thereof.

6. The Defendants entered appearance in the said Suit and thereafter filed an Application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the Plaint. Upon considering the averments in the Plaint and the documents annexed thereto, the Ld. Trial Court rejected the said Application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Application has been preferred

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER – DEFENDANT

7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Anshin Desai, appearing for the Defendant, has primarily contended that, upon a plain reading of the Plaint and the documents annexed thereto, it becomes evident that the Suit is ex facie barred by the law of limitation. According to him, the record itself establishes that the Plaintiffs were, at all material times, fully aware of the transactions in question. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs had themselves executed a Power of Attorney in favour of deceased Defendant No. 1, who happened to be the brother of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 and the son of Plaintiff No. 1. Since the said Power of Attorney has never been challenged by the Plaintiffs, it is argued that Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 cannot now maintain a Suit to challenge the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1, who is their own brother and duly authorized attorney.

8. Mr. Desai has submitted that a careful reading of the averments made in the Plaint reveals that the Plaintiffs themselves have stated that the original owner of the suit property was one Shankalchand Punaji Vacheta, who passed away on 10.08.1996, leaving behind his wife Pushpaben, i.e. Plaintiff No.1, his daughters, Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, and his son, deceased Defendant No.1 Bharat Shankalchand Vacheta. It is further stated in paragraph 2 of t