A suit is barred by limitation if filed after the prescribed period, regardless of claims of fraud or clever drafting to avoid limitations.

The present civil revision has been filed by the petitioners/defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by Court of learned 26th District Judge, Indore in Regular Civil Suit No.290-A/2023 whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC .

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Civil Suit No.290-A/2023 before trial court seeking cancellation of sale-deed and perpetual injunction, recovery of damage. It was pleaded that plaintiff No.1 is company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and plaintiff No.2 has been managing director of plaintiff No.1 and duly authorised to institute civil suit. It was also pleaded that defendant No.1 is one person company registered under the Companies Act and defendant No.3 is the sole person owning, representing the defendant No.1 company. Plaintiff No.1 pleaded that he has been owner and was recorded Bhuswami of the agricultural and unirrigated land bearing survey Nos.177/1 area 1.418 hectare and 178/2 area 0.208 hectare thereafter registered as suit land which is situated in viallage-Khajrana, Tahsil and District-Indore. He further pleaded that --3-- plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 06.10.2006 executed by Shri Kripa Grah Nirman Santha Maryadit in favour of plaintiff No.1 and thereby acquired Bhumiswami rights in respect of the suit land and accordingly mutated in the revenue records.

3. Present suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deed purporting to have been executed by plaintiff No.2 on behalf of plaintiff No.1 on 23.06.2015 and registered on 12.11.2018 in favour of defendant No.1 company as the same has been vitiated by fraud committed by defendants as mentioned hereunder. Plaintiffs have also claimed perpetual injunction against defendant No.1 from alienating the suit land. This sale-deed is in question. He further submitted that defendant No.2 was also a co-director in the plaintiff No.1 company along with plaintiff No.2 for about 4-5 years. The plaintiff No.1 company purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 06.10.2006. The sale-deed in respect of plot No.57 was executed by plaintiff No.2 in presence of defendant No.2 on 23.06.2015 and thereafter, presented for registration. The sale-deed ran into several pages and copies and were also required to be signed and the process was lengthy and clumsy. The sale-deed is hereinafter referred to as “sale-deed A”. The sale deed in respect of plot No.55 is referred to as “sale-deed B”.

4. Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking relief for cancellation of sale- deed in question dated 23.06.2015 registered on 12.11.2018 bearing Registration No.A-1 2870.

5. After noticing, defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 whereby raising the contention that suit is barred under Order 1 Rule 3B CPC as State has not been made party nor given notice under Section 80 of CPC and there is a statutory bar Section 257 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for entertainment of suit and suit is --4-- barred by limitation and the suit is frivolous and vexatious and does not disclose the clear right to sue.

6. Plaintiff/respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted the reply and trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties passed the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 and dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC . Being aggrieved by the order, this civil revision has been filed by the petitioners by submitting that trial Court failed to appreciate that even as per the judgment relied upon by the plaintiffs in case of Brijraj Singh Vs. Bitto Devi 1994 MPLJ 192 , whenever there is a non- compliance with Order 1 Rule 3(B) of CPC then at that very stage, the defects has to be rectified, hence, without joining State as a party under Order 1 Rule 3(B) CPC , the suit could not have proceeded and trial court also failed to appreciate