The court ruled that limitation in cases of fraud requires factual inquiry, allowing claims to proceed despite time elapsed since deed execution.

JUDGMENT

1.Heard fnally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.

2. Since both these civil revision applications raise similar question of law and facts, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Both these civil revision applications challenge the order passed by 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur below application Exh-32 in Special Civil Suit No. 384 of 2019 as well as order passed below Exh-27 in Special Civil Suit No.472 of 2019, thereby dismissing both the applications fled by defendant no.1/applicant, for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 with Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure .

4. Brief facts of the case are that, non-applicants/ plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 in both the civil revision applications, fled Special Civil Suit No. 384 of 2019 and Special Suit No. 472 of 2019 thereby seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 25/01/2008, executed by the plaintiffs through Power of Attorney (for short ‘POA’) in favour of defendant no.1.

Following reliefs are claimed in both the suits :

“1) The Hon’ble court be pleased to declare that the sale deed dated 25-1-2008 executed by plaintiffs through power of attorney holder Shri Kamlesh Dadhe in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

2) In the event this Hon’ble court comes to the conclusion that the sale deed cannot be declared as null and void, be further pleased to direct the defendants to execute a deed of correction in the sale deed dated 25-1-2008 and direct the defendants to provide fve developed plots to plaintiffs abutting 15 meter DP Road from potable area total admeasuring 25,000 sq.ft. (2322 sq.mtrs).

3) Be further pleased to direct defendants to incorporate that the area of sale to defendant is 6470 sq.mtr. out of Survey no. 312/3 of Mouza-Chinch Bhawan, Tah. & District Nagpur.

4) Be further pleased to direct the defendants to co-operate with the plaintiffs in obtaining TDR in accordance with law and be further pleased to permanently restrain the defendants from claiming any TDR.

5) Be further pleased to permanently restrain the defendants, their directors, agents, ofce-bearers, servants, relatives or any other person acting on their behalf from creating further partition of the suit property till the plaintiffs are placed in vacant possession of their fve plots total admeasuring 25,000 sq.ft. From and out of plotable area and certifcate of TDR in accordance with law.

6) Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems ft under the facts and circumstances be also granted in favour of plaintiffs..

5. The defendants appeared and resisted the suits by fling written statement. Defendant no.1 fled application Exh- 32 in Special Civil Suit No. 384 of 2019 and application Exh.27 in Special Civil Suit No. 472 of 2019 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of with Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the plaintiffs have admitted that they executed POA in favour of Kamlesh Dadhe which was duly registered on 24/11/2005 and the POA holder executed development agreement for 0.67 HR of the land which was registered on 24/11/2005. Another agreement of development for balance 0.80 HR land was executed on 31/01/2006 and it was registered on 02/05/2006. Therefore the question of getting knowledge for the frst time by the plaintiffs as is averred in the claims is unacceptable.

The d