##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 15 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No.597 of 2026 M/S JABALPUR BUILDCON AND OTHERS Versus LATE BIHARI LAL(DEAD)TH.LRS. CHANDA BAI PASI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh - Advocate for the Petitioner.

ORDER As per Office note, the Respondents No.1-A to 1-F are served, but they have chosen not to enter appearance before this Court. The Respondents No.1-A to 1-F are legal representatives of the sole plaintiff and therefore, since the plaintiffs are served, this Court proceeds to hear the Revision.

2. By way of this Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, challenge is made to the Order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application of the present applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected, which was on the ground of the plaint being barred by law of limitation.

3. A suit has been filed by the Plaintiff who is now deceased and represented by his legal representatives. The suit has been filed on 01.02.2022 for declaring the sale deed dated 05.06.1961 to be null and void, and for recovery of possession. The present applicants, who are the subsequently impleaded defendants in the said suit, filed application for rejection of plaint on the ground of it being barred by law of limitation and that has been rejected by the Trial Court against which the defendants No.3A to 3D are before this Court. These defendants are subsequent purchasers of the suit land.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently argued that the suit is barred by law of limitation even from the bare perusal of averments and assertions contained in the plaint. It is argued that the suit has been filed to avoid sale deed dated 05.06.1961 on which date the plaintiff is stated to be around 14 years of age and therefore the plaintiff must have attained majority in the year 1965. However, the suit has been filed in February 2022 which is 61 years after execution of sale deed and 57 years after the plaintiff attaining the age of majority. To avoid the sale deed executed during minority of the plaintiff, the limitation expired after 3 years of attaining the age of majority, i.e, in the year 1968, and the suit has been filed 54 years after the year 1968 and is therefore hopelessly barred by limitation.

5. It is further argued that the plaint though projects in para 5 that the plaintiff got knowledge about the affairs of the suit land in the month of November, 2021 and thereafter he got the requisite documents taken out from concerned offices and has got the suit filed and in this manner, from the date of knowledge, the suit has been projected to be filed within limitation. It is vehemently argued that it is not a mechanical and pedantic reading of the contents of the plaint which has to be carried out, but a meaningful reading of the contents of the plaint which has to be carried out for adjudicating the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

6. From a bare perusal of plaint assertions, it would be clear that no mixed question of law and fact arises to adjudicate the question of limitation. From a bare reading of contents of plaint, it would be clear that the plaint is barred by law of limitation. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on a judgment in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601 to argue that a meaningful reading of the entire contents of the plaint has to be carried out and to find that whether upon considering the averments of plaint as a whole, the suit is barred under Limitation Act and plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit of clever drafting.

7. By placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, it is argued that the Court has to pierce the veil of clever drafting and Court has to be vigilant