IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI CIVIL REVISION No. 765 of 2025 SIMTED OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR ABHAY GUPTA Versus NARESH GUPTA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Rizwan Nizam, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].

RESERVED ON : 03.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 16.12.2025 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ORDER

1 . The present revision petition has been filed being aggrieved by th the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Indore (M.P.) in Civil Suit No. RCS A-658/2021, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint as the suit is clearly barred by law, has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant facts are that the respondent No.1 /plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the petitioner/defendant for declaration and permanent injunction by setting aside Sale Deed dated 18.06.2008. As per plaint averment, the respondent No. 1 is claiming himself to be the owner of the land bearing the Survey No. 509/1 total area 2.433 hectare situated at village - Khajrana, Indore (M.P.). The respondent No. 2, on the basis of a forged and fabricated Power of Attorney, illegally and fraudulently executed a registered sale deed bearing No. 1A/1614 dated 18.06.2008 in favour of petitioner/defendant. It is further pleaded that the aforesaid land in question is duly recorded in the name of the petitioner in revenue records in compliance of the order passed in mutation Case No. 186- A/06/2007-08 dated 11.09.2008 and since then, the petitioner is in lawful possession of the property in question. Being aggrieved by the said order of mutation, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 2009-2010. Vide order dated 17.08.2011, the Sub-Divisional Officer, remanded the mutation case to the Tehsildar with a direction to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. In the plaint, the respondent No. 1 has admitted that a notice was issued to the government officer (defendant in the said plaint) on 19.03.2012 in relation to the registered Sale Deed No. 1614 dated 18.06.2008, executed in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent th No. 1 filed a Civil Suit No. 16-A/2013 before the Court of XII Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore (M.P.) seeking cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.03.2014 on the ground of non-payment of Court fee as well as on jurisdictional ground. Subsequently, after the dismissal of the first suit, respondent No. 1 filed another Civil Suit in the year 2021 for declaration and permanent injunction and further seeking the relief of cancellation of the same sale deed executed on the basis of forged and fabricated Power of Attorney.

3 . Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the present suit, instituted on 05.07.2021, is clearly barred by limitation. Learned Trial Court, in utter disregard of the settled principles of law, passed an order rejecting the application, being aggrieved by said order dated 04.07.2025, present petition is preferred.

4. Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that learned Trial Court has committed a grave error of law in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC as it did not properly consider the fact that respondent No.1/plaintiff himself has admitted the fact that first cause of action arose in the year 2008. The respondent No.1, has clearly admitted in the plaint th