ORDER

This civil revisions has been preferred by the petitioners/defendants 1-3 challenging the order dtd.28.10.2021 passed by Second Additional Judge to the court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Damoh in RCSA No.22/2020, whereby defendant 1- Jagjeet Singh's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC r/w sec. 151 CPC dtd.13.08.2021, has been dismissed.

2. Perusal of application under Order Rule 7 Rule 11 CPC shows that it has been filed only by defendant 1, therefore, this civil revision, which has been filed by defendants 2-3 also, is hereby dismissed as not maintainable because they did not file any application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before trial court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relief claimed in the suit in respect of sale deed in question is clearly barred by limitation and also submits that if from perusal of the plaint averments the suit is clearly barred by limitation, then the question of limitation can be considered and decided by way of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. She submits that although the plaintiff has come with the case that he is in possession and has also sought relief of injunction but he is not in possession of the property and is not entitled for decree of permanent injunction. She submits that the suit has been filed without disclosing any cause of action. With the aforesaid submissions she prays for allowing the civil revision.

4. In support of her contentions learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Bajoria and Ors. vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 4594 and by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhirdas vs. United Church of D Canada India, Dhar Beneficiary and Ors. (2020) 1 MPLR 714.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the civil revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the present case civil suit has been filed for declaring the sale deed dtd.16.02.1995 to be null and void and claiming himself to be in possession the plaintiff has also claimed relief of permanent injunction. As to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property or not, can be considered and decided only after recording evidence of the parties. In the case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal and Ors. vs. Axis Bank Ltd. and Anr. (2019) 7 SCC 158, the Apex Court has held that the plaint cannot be rejected in piece meal but it can be rejected as a whole.

8. As such even if for the sake of argument the suit is taken to be barred by limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected because on the basis of possession, the plaintiff can be granted decree of permanent injunction.

9. Resultantly finding no ground to interfere in the impugned order, this civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)

JUDGE ss