A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the grounds for rejection, such as res-judicata or limitation, involve disputed questions of fact that require a full trial for adjudication.

ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the order dated 10-12-2025 whereby the trial court has rejected the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. The application was filed on two grounds. Firstly that the suit is patently barred by Res-judicata in asmuch as earlier the present plaintiffs had filed a suit which was dismissed under Order 9 rule 8 CPC and thereafter even application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC had been dismissed but despite that, for the same relief the subsequent suit has been filed.

3. The second objection taken was that the suit is patently barred by limitation because the will in question has been executed in the year 2012 and as per plaint assertions in para 8, it appears that the plaintiffs were in knowledge of the will atleast since the year 2016 and despite that the suit has been filed in the year 2025.

4. On both the issues the trial court has held that both the issues are triable issues and looking to the plaint assertions the plaint cannot be rejected and therefore granted liberty to the petitioners/ defendants to raise the objections in written statement.

5. On considering the rival submissions, it is seen that so far as the earlier suit is concerned, though the plaint was filed by as many as eight persons who are mentioned in the plant as plaintiffs which include the present plaintiffs, but the signatures on the plaint as well as on the verification are only of plaintiff No. 1 therein namely Ram Kripal, and of no other plaintiff. Even the affidavit has been signed only by plaintiff No.1 Ram Kripal. Though there is a Vakalatnama on record in which the names of all eight plaintiffs are there but Vakalatnama does not mention any father's name or address of the eight persons and during course of arguments before this court counsel for the plaintiffs had submitted that the Vakalatnama indicates that all the signatures are marked by same person and in absence of signing the plaint and verification it cannot be said that the earlier suit was filed by the present plaintiffs.

6. In view of the position that the earlier suit was not signed by the present plaintiffs though their names are there in the memorandum of plaint as plaintiffs but some signatures/thumb impressions are marked on the Vakalatnama, it cannot be inferred without trial that the present plaintiffs were the plaintiffs in the earlier suit also. A triable issue is made out as it remains a disputed and contested question of fact.

7. So far as the question regarding limitation is concerned, pointing out to para-8 of the plaint it was argued before this court that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the will at least before 11-01-2016 which was the date on which the revenue authority ordered mutation on the basis of will, it is seen that the first relief in the suit is to declare title of the plaintiffs as per the sale deed dated 20-10-2010 and the second relief is to declare the will as not binding on the plaintiffs.

8. The sale deed which is being projected by the plaintiffs in their favor is of a date prior to the date of execution of will and declaration is being sought on the basis of the said sale deed which is prior to the date of will and therefore even if it is inferred that the knowledge of will was with the plaintiffs, then it cannot be said that the plaint as regards first relief