THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2840 of 2024

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Artticle

227 of Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2024 passed in I.A. No. 93 of 2021 in O.S. No. 02 of 2021 on the file of Principal District Judge, at Nalgonda.

2. The respondent herein filed the subject suit for cancellation of Agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney (for short ‘AGPA’) without possession and consequential injunction, as plaintiff vide O.S. No. 02 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’).

3. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the above said Suit.

4. The petitioners herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 93 of 2021 in the subject suit under Order VII Rule 11 r/w section 151 of CPC for rejection of plaint. The said application was filed on the grounds that the suit is liable to be rejected as it is barred by limitation, since, the registered AGPA’s was acted upon with respect to the relief sought.

5. The said application was resisted by the respondent / plaintiff.

6. The trial Court by considering the submission made on either side dismissed the underlying interlocutory application filed by the petitioners herein seeking rejection of the plaint by observing that the objection raised by the petitioners herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation is not tenable at this stage; that the suit was filed seeking cancellation of Agreement of sale-cum- general power of attorney, and the question of limitation, in such circumstances, involves a mixed question of law and fact, and therefore, cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold stage without a full-fledged trial.

7. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 27.06.2024, the petitioners herein had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 8. Heard Shri Jagadishwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

9. The petitioners contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint; that the suit filed by the respondent is ex facie barred by limitation and does not disclose any valid cause of action; that the suit was filed in January 2021 seeking cancellation of Agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney: that in the plaint itself the cause of action is shown as having arisen on 11.07.2020; that the suit is clearly time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a limitation of three years to file a suit; that the trial court failed to take note of the said fact; and that the suit as filed for cancellation of an instrument is vexatious.

10.The petitioners contends that the cause of action set out in the plaint is wholly illusory; that as per the contents of the AGPA and recitals of the documents, the entire sale consideration was already paid and only upon receiving it, the respondent empowered the petitioners to execute the sale deeds and to deliver possession in favour of the prospective purchasers, and there is no pleading or document to rebut the same; that the contention regarding non- payment of sale consideration is not a valid ground for cancellation of the AGPA. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside, and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11of CPC as being barred by limitation and for want of cause of action.

11. I have taken note of the contentions urged.

12. At the outset, it is beneficial to note that the power of rejection of plaint is conferred on the trial Court to ensure that meaningless and abortive litigation is prevented from occupying the time of the Court (See: Azhar Hussein vs. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253).

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (2003) 1 SCC 557, held that the trail Court while deciding an application under Order VII R