IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 1119 of 2025 MOHAN MISHRA AND OTHERS Versus MOHAN PRASAD AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Gajendra Parashar - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parasiya, District Chhindrawal in RCS 68-A/2024, by which an application submitted by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit is barred by limitation and as such the court below ought to have rejected the plaint at the threshold by exercising powers vested with the court under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his argument to the extent of suit barred by limitation and no other ground has been raised before this Court. However, the application also contents that the suit is barred by Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, but the same has not been argued before this Court and, therefore, that has not been considered by this Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5. It is evident from the impugned order that the court below has given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the petitioners in the application and held that the question of limitation is to be decided after due enquiry and after reading evidence adduced by the parties. From a bare perusal of the plaint (Annexure A/2), it is also evident that the suit has been filed for declaration of title and also to declare that the sale deed dated 20.04.1973 is not binding on the plaintiffs on the ground that on the date when the sale deed was executed, the name of the vendor was not recorded in the revenue record and as such without recording his name, such sale deed was executed. The cause of action has been shown to be on the date when the petitioners/defendants tried to get the name of the respondents deleted from the revenue record before the revenue authority. Therefore, on a bare perusal of the plaint averments, the cause of action, as submitted by the respondents/plaintiffs, suit is not barred by limitation and as such question of limitation cannot be decided at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan & others, 2025 SCC Online SC 975. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 13 and 14 has held as under:

"13. In this backdrop, the approach of the High Court in reversing the well-reasoned order of the trial Court warrants interference. The trial Court had rightly held that the issue of limitation necessitated adjudication upon evidence, particularly in view of the appellant's assertion that the Power of Attorney executed by him did not confer any authority upon his father to alienate the suit property and that the impugned transaction came to his knowledge only at a much later point in time. In such circumstances, the determination of limitation involved disputed questions of fact that could not be summarily decided without the benefit of trial. The High Court, however, proceeded to reject the plaint solely on a prima facie assumption that the suit was barred by limitation, without undertaking any examination as to whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge was demonstrably false or inherently improbable in light of the record. In the opinion of this Court, such an approach amounts to an error of law and constitutes a misapplication of the well-established principles governing the exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. For the same reasons, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are inapplicable, being factually distinguishable