IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.03.2025 Sukhvir Singh & Anr ... Petitioner(s)

Versus Gurjeet Singh & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Harkaran Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.05.2024 dismissing the application filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2- petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint primarily on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit for declaration challenging a Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners herein dated 04.08.2017 in respect of land measuring 14 kanals 16 marlas and further sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners herein in favour of defendant No.3- respondent No.3 herein. The defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. It was stated in the application that the cause of action arose on 19.07.2019 when the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the SDM Kharar, however, the date of knowledge has wrongly been mentioned as 19.04.2023. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2024, the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners would contend that the suit was barred by limitation on the ground that the plaintiff- respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed an application for cancellation of the mutation before the Collector and the proceedings were contested and hence the date of knowledge as mentioned in the plaint is incorrect.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2-

petitioners.

5. In the present case a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners as to whether the ground of limitation is made out from a meaningful reading of the plaint. He states that a wrong date has been mentioned regarding when the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 gained knowledge and hence the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ought to have been allowed. It is further contended by the learned counsel that since earlier the mutation was challenged and the proceedings were contested, hence the said date has incorrectly been mentioned by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners has not been able to show any pleading to that effect in the plaint.

6. It is trite that while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the plaint is to be seen. At the time of contesting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and not those of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC or any other pleadings.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors. [AIR 2021 SC 5212] has held as under :

“10.Insofar as the rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasis that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that only after making inspection of the records in connection with the suit land available in the office of defendant No.3 (Court Receiver) that they came across the correspondence and documents relating to the transactions and that the proceedings before the ALT were collusive, fraudulent and null and void. The appellants/plaintiffs have even questioned the authority of the Court Receiver to represent them in the tenancy proceedings.”

8. In case of Chhotanben & Anr. vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & Ors. [2018(5) RCR (Civil) 163], the Supreme Court held as under :

“12.What is relevant for answering the matter in i