An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of a plaint must be decided based solely on the averments within the plaint; issues like limitation and res judicata involving complex factual and legal aspects are not suitable for summary rejection at the threshold.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P.4), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh, vide which the application filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioners’) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `the CPC’) for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.

The respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondents’) instituted a suit (Annexure P-1) for declaration to the effect that judgment and decree dated 10.12.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 19 of 1995, was illegal, null and void and was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and sale deed dated 01.02.2006 and mutation Nos. 3079, 3080, 3028 and 3029, were not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. Consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction was also sought.

It was claimed that one Mohd. Ishq @ Ishaq and Rahim Khan had purchased land measuring 9 bighas from Sardar Khan vide sale deed dated 25.03.1958. After consolidation proceedings, land measuring 38 kanals 9 marlas (fully detailed in the plaint) situated within the revenue estate of village Rewasan, Tehsil Nuh, District Nuh, Gurgaon, was allotted to Mohd. Ishaq @ Ishaq and Rahim Khan. The said sale deed was challenged by Amra son of Sardar Khan by way of a civil suit, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 29.12.1961, but the appeal filed against the said decision was allowed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurugram on 07.03.1963. The predecessors of plaintiff Nos. 6 to 14 filed RSA- 709-1963 before the High Court, which was decided on 29.07.1973 and defendant No.1 and others (successors-in-interest of Sardar Khan) were held entitled to take possession of the land after depositing a sum of Rs.6503/-.

It was further averred that on the basis of the decision in the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal, defendant No. 1 and others filed Civil Suit No. 19 of 1995, which was decreed ex parte by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh, vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.1997. The said judgment and decree was sought to be declared as illegal, null and void on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

An application (Annexure P-3) was moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the petitioners seeking rejection of the plaint. It was averred that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and by res-judicata as the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit regarding the land in dispute between the parties, was upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same had attained finality. It was further averred that the suit filed by the respondents plaintiffs was also barred by limitation.

Vide the impugned order, the said application was rejected, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

It was strenuously urged by learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioners that the trial Court had erred in dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint. It was argued that the suit filed by the respondents was barred by limitation and the pleas taken in the civil suit were totally vague. Reference was made to para No.9(vi) of the plaint, wherein it was mentioned that the respondents-plaintiffs had played fraud upon the petitioners and when they learnt about it, the suit was filed.

It was further argued by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the earlier judgment and decree was passed on 10.12.1997, whereas the instant suit was filed on 23.07.2024. While drawing the attention of this Court to the vague pleas of the respondents as regards limitation, it was argued that having remained in slumber for more than two decades, the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was hopelessly barred by limitation and, thus, the approach of the trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitio