THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3648 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated 03.09.2024 in I.A.No.2342 of 2023 in O.S.No.486 of 2023, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Balaji Varma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Krishna Kumar, learned Counsel for respondents.

Perused the record.

3. Petitioner herein is defendant No.1, respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of the present revision petition are that respondent No.1 filed a suit vide O.S.No.486 of 2023, against the petitioner and other respondents for declaration and recovery of possession of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-13 gts in Sy.No.35/2/2, situated at Solipet Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’); that petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 entered appearance and pending adjudication of the suit, petitioner filed an application vide I.A.No.2342 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, to reject the plaint; that respondent No.1 filed the counter affidavit resisting the said application.

5. The trial Court on due consideration of pleadings and contentions put forth by both the parties, dismissed the application vide impugned Order dated 03.09.2024, with an observation that plaint discloses cause of action and the suit is within the period of limitation and also observed that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and it has to be decided only after completion of trial. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition is filed.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the observation of the trial Court that cause of action and limitation prima-facie shows that the suit is filed within limitation, is contrary to the law laid down in ITC Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery Apellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 and Madanri Sri Ramchandra Murthy

Vs. Syed Jalal,, (2017) 13 SCC 174 wherein it was held that “clever drafting of the plaint creating an illusionary cause of action should be nipped in the bud so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage”. Learned Counsel for petitioner further submitted that the observation of the trial Court that concept of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, as such the same cannot be decided in the application and the law of limitation is a triable issue and it can be decided only after completion of full-fledged trial, is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties,, (2020) 6 SCC 557 wherein it was held that “it is permissible to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, where the plaint averment itself indicates that the cause of action is barred by limitation and no further evidence is required to adjudicate the issue”. He further relied upon the following Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court:-

i) State of Punjab Vs. Gurudev Singh,4 ii) Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity Commissioner,5 iii) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh,6

4 (1991) 4 SCC 1

5 (2004) 3 SCC 137

6 (2020) 16 SCC 601

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in a suit for declaration to declare the sale deed as null and void, the limitation under Article 58 commences from the day, the cause of action first accrues to the plaintiff to challenge the sale deed. He also submitted that respondent No.1 is seeking recovery of possession on illusionary cause of action by artificially creating the date as 10.08.2023, whereas, as per the sale deed bearing document No.9398 of 2005, dated 18.10.2005, possession was handed over to respondent No.2 and he in turn handed over the possession to the petitioner herein through a registered sale deed bearing document No.5450 of 2016, dated 12.08.2016