Order On Board

01.05.2024 I.A. No.01/2024

1. Heard on this application for condonation of delay in iling the revision.

2. On due consideration, application is allowed and delay of 39 days in illing the instant revision is condoned. The matter is heard.

Civil Revision No.67/2024

3. This Civil Revision has been iled against the order dated

06.12.2023 passed in Case No.48-A/2023 by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Paatan, Durg, District Durg (C.G) whereby, the application preferred by the applicant/Defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC raising the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and also not properly valued, has been dismissed.

4. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1/plaintif had iled a Civil Suit bearing Civil Suit No.48-A/2023 alleging that deceased John Singh has sold the land in question (disputed land) to Defendant No.1/applicant vide Registered Sale Deed dated 30.03.2009. Though the seller had already sold the disputed land in the year 1997, in favour of the plaintif and the plaintif has acquired the right of ownership and possession but due to certain legal formalities, the Sale Deed executed in the year 1997 was registered only on 05.05.2015. The Suit was iled for declaration and permanent injunction and also to declare the Sale Deed dated 30.03.2009 as null and void. In such suit, the applicant has iled an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and had raised the ground that the plaintif has iled the Civil Suit to challenge the Sale Deed which was executed in favour of the applicant on 30.03.2009 after more than 22 years.

Further, the plaintif categorically admits the fact in the averments of her plaint that the earlier Registered Deed was executed on 15.05.2015, after the date of impugned Sale Deed, which was executed in favour of the applicant on 30.03.2009. Plaintif has wrongly stated the fact that deceased John Singh has also handed over the possession in favour of the plaintif and the plaintif has also produced the Sale Deed which was executed in her favour.

5. The learned trial Court in the impugned order while rejecting the application iled under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has observed that the plaintif was not the party in the alleged Sale Deed dated 30.03.2009, therefore, she was not required to pay Ad valorem Court Fees on the consideration of the said Sale Deed and further, it has been observed that at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments in the plaint and the accompanying document relied upon in the plaint has to be seen and the plaintif categorically stated that she is in possession of the suit property and earlier sale was executed in her favour. It has been further observed that the issues relating to limitation and the valuation can be decided only after framing of the issues and accordingly the said application was disposed of against which this revision has been iled.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has not passed the order in true prospective, as the plaintif has categorically raised the ground that the Suit is barred by limitation, as the alleged Sale Deed was executed on 30.03.2009 in favour of the applicant/Defendant No.1 and the Suit was not iled within 3 years from the date of the registration.

7. Upon being asked, he fairly admits that since the plaintif was not party in the alleged Sale Deed, she is not required to pay Ad valorem Court Fees in view of the judgment laid down in the matter of Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 112. Learned counsel for the applicant would place reliance with regard to the limitation in the matter of Suresh Kumar Dagla Vs. Sarwan And Another (2014) 14 SCC 254. He would further submit that in the said case also, the ground of limitation was raised and the plaintif had knowledge of the date of the sale and the Suit was iled beyond the limitation period, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was allowed by the Hon’