THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3565 of 2023

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 06.10.2023 in I.A. No. 125 of 2022 in O.S. No. 459 of 2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant in the above said Suit.

3. The respondents herein filed the subject suit for cancellation of agreement of sale and sale deed, as the plaintiffs vide O.S. No. 459 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’).

4. The petitioner herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 125 of 2021 in the subject suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w section 151 of CPC for rejection of plaint. The said application was filed on the ground that the suit is liable to be rejected as it is barred by limitation, suffers from non-

payment of proper court fee, and is undervalued with respect to the relief sought.

5. The Trial Court after hearing the petitioner and respondent, dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner herein seeking rejection of the plaint by observed that the objection raised by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation is not tenable at this stage as the suit was filed seeking cancellation of a sale deed, which falls under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, prescribing a limitation period of three years from the date of knowledge or denial; and that as per the averments in the plaint, the denial to execute or cancel the sale deed occurred on 11.07.2019, and the suit was instituted on 30.11.2021, which is well within the prescribed limitation period. It was further observed that 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.

6. The trial Court also observed that the petitioner’s contention regarding the absence of signatures of respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the plaint does not fall within the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the said provision does not contemplate rejection of a plaint on such a ground. Moreover, it is evident from the record that respondent Nos.1 to 4 were subsequently removed from the array of parties pursuant to orders passed in the I.A. No.1413 of 2022. Therefore, this ground does not affect the maintainability of the plaint.

7. Aggrieved by the above said order dated. 06.10.2023 the petitioner herein had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 9. The petitioner contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint; that the suit filed by the respondents is ex facie barred by limitation and does not disclose any valid cause of action; that the suit was filed on 30.11.2021 seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 21.10.2013 and the plaint itself shows that the cause of action allegedly arose on 10.08.2013 and 21.10.2013; 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 for cancellation of an instrument from the date when the cause of action or knowledge of the impugned transaction first arises.

10. The petitioner contends that the cause of action set out in the plaint is wholly illusory; that the contents of the sale deed categorically mention that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 8,73,000/- was paid, and there is no pleading or document to rebut that presumption; that the contention regarding non-payment of sale consideration is not a valid ground for cancellation of the sale deed, and in such cases, the appropriate remedy lies in recovery of the consideration amount, if unpaid, and not cancellation of the register