ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st to 5th defendants in O.S. No. 5681 of 2016, pending on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. They are aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No. 4833 of 2017, by order dated 05.02.2020. The said Interlocutory Application had been filed by them under Order VII Rule 7 (a), (b) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint as barred by law, as having no cause of action and want of appropriate court fees. 2. The suit in O.S. No. 5681 of 2016 had been filed the plaintiff/1st respondent herein against the present revision petitioners and another defendant J. Venugopal, who had chosen not to participate either in hearings of the Interlocutory Application or before this Court. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that a Partition Deed dated 11.02.2000 executed among the revision petitioners/1st to 5th defendants and registered as Document No. 409 of 2000 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Purasaiwakkam, and an exparte decree dated 28.02.2003 passed in O.S. No. 5725 of 2002 on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai filed by the revision petitioners/1st to 5th defendants against the 6th defendant J. Venugopal are both null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners/1st to 5th defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the property bearing No. 20/2, Ponappa Mudali Street, Vysarpadi, Chennai and for costs. 3. Heard arguments advanced by Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the revision petitioners/1st to 5th defendants and Mr.R.Manickavel, learned Counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 4. Mrs. Hema Sampath, Learned Senior Counsel took the Court through the plaint and stated that the reliefs to declare that the partition deed dated 28.02.2000 and the exparte decree in O.S. 5725 of 2002 dated 28.02.2003 as null and void are barred by the law of limitation. The partition deed is a registered document, reflected in the encumbrance certificate and the plaintiff cannot disclaim knowledge of the same. The decree in O.S. No. 5725 of 2002 had been passed after due procedure and unless fraud is pleaded, the same cannot be impinged after nearly 2 decades. The partition deed is a registered document, reflected in the encumbrance certificate and the plaintiff cannot disclaim knowledge of the same. The decree in O.S. No. 5725 of 2002 had been passed after due procedure and unless fraud is pleaded, the same cannot be impinged after nearly 2 decades. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the immediate cause of action was said to be the lodging of a police complaint, but also pointed out that a copy of the said complaint had not been filed as a document with the plaint. As a matter of fact even the date had not been mentioned and that fact had also not been stated in the cause of action paragraph. Learned Senior Counsel was emphatic in her submissions that the plaint in O.S. No. 5681 of 2016 should be rejected and found fault with the order dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed seeking such relief. 5. Mr. R.Manickavel, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff on the other hand disputed the said contentions, and stated that the issue of limitation is always a mixed question of law and facts which can be determined only after analyzing the evidence adduced. Similarly with respect to the grounds to declare the exparte decree as null and void, learned counsel stated that the 1st respondent/plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to tender evidence to substantiate fraud, and invited the revision petitioners to participate in the trial and test the evidence during cross examination. Learned Counsel stated that the 1st respondent/plaintiff came to know about the partition deed and the exparte only during the enquiry in the police station and stated that therefore the suit is not barred by limitation. 6. In Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 , the Honourable Supreme Court had held as follows:- “23.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: “11. 6. In Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 , the Honourable Supreme Court had held as follows:- “23.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: “11. Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9: Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. 23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. 23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. 23.4. In [Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315, followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 : (1998) 2 GLH 823 ] this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words : (SCC p. 324, para 12) “12. … The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.” 23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512 ] , read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 23.9. 23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. 23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 ] 23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512 ] which reads as : (SCC p. 562, para 139) “139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.” 23.12. In [Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614 ] the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. [D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267 ; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941 ] . 23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 23.14. The power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of [Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 ]. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case [Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315, followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 : (1998) 2 GLH 823 ] . 23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by ny law, the court has no option, but to reject the plaint. 24.1. In [Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam, (2005) 10 CC 51] this Court held : (SCC p. 60, para 24) “24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his ight to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his ight to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.” 24.2. In [T. Arivandandamv. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 ] this Court held that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words : (SCC p. 470, para 5) “5. … The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful—not formal—reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to ue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing.…” 24.3. Subsequently, in [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 ] this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint. 24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.” [ Emphasis Supplied] In K.Akbar Ali Vs. K.Umar Khan and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 238, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “5. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.” [ Emphasis Supplied] In K.Akbar Ali Vs. K.Umar Khan and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 238, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “5. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the question before the Court is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law, on the face of the averments contained in the plaint itself. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC the Court is not to look into the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff or the defence raised by the defendant. 7. In any case, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint requires a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole. As held by this Court in ITC v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal reported in (1998) 2 SCC 70 : AIR 1998 SC 634 , clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint. Similarly the Court must see that the bar in law of the suit is not camouflaged by devious and clever drafting of the plaint. Moreover, the provisions of Order VII Rue 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court. 12. It is patently clear from a meaningful reading of the plaint in its entirety that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the first defendant being the owner of the suit property, the Power of Attorney being patently invalid. The inter-se dispute between the heirs of the deceased-Defendant No. 1 will not confer any right on the petitioner as his claim is based upon a pre-emption agreement executed by a power of attorney, which does not authorize the attorney to deal with the property of the said defendant. 13. The inter-se dispute between the heirs of the deceased-Defendant No. 1 will not confer any right on the petitioner as his claim is based upon a pre-emption agreement executed by a power of attorney, which does not authorize the attorney to deal with the property of the said defendant. 13. The Division Bench of the High Court has done substantial justice by nipping in the bud, a suit which is ex facie not maintainable for want of cause of action against the defendants or any of them, thereby saving precious judicial time as also inconvenience and expenditure to the parties to the suit.” [Emphasis Supplied] 7. In Geo Miller and Company Private Limited Vs. Chairman, Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited reported in (2020) 14 SCC 643 , the Honourable Supreme Court, albeit in an issue arising out of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, had stated “Mere correspondence of the appellant by way of writing letters/reminders to the respondent subsequent to this date would not extend the time of limitation”. [Emphasis Supplied] 8. Thus, mere correspondences would not be of any assistance to the plaintiff. This ratio would also extend to filing of police complaints. 9. This aspect has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secunderabad Cantonment Board Vs. B.Ramachandraiah & Sons reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 219, wherein, the very same portion had been extracted in paragraph No.15 namely, that “Mere correspondence of the appellant by way of writing letters/reminders to the respondent subsequent to this date would not extend the time of limitation”. [Emphasis Supplied] 10. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint will have to be read to determine whether there is cause of action for instituting the suit and whether such cause of action is within the period of limitation. 11. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as plaintiffs and defendants. The 1st to 5th defendants are the revision petitioners. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff. The 2nd respondent is the 6th defendant. 12. The plaintiff had traced the title of the property. She claimed that Rathna Mudaliyar had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 04.05.1923 in the name of his 2nd wife, Thanjammal @ Amirthammal and his minor son through the said wife, Arumugam. He also had a daughter, Krishnaveni, through the said wife. 12. The plaintiff had traced the title of the property. She claimed that Rathna Mudaliyar had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 04.05.1923 in the name of his 2nd wife, Thanjammal @ Amirthammal and his minor son through the said wife, Arumugam. He also had a daughter, Krishnaveni, through the said wife. He also executed a registered settlement deed on 15.10.1928 in favour of Thanjammal @ Amirthammal. Subsequently, Govindaswamy, the son of Rathna Mudaliyar through his 1st wife, and his two minor sons, Balaraman and Selvarajan executed a registered release deed on 24.07.1935 in respect of the suit property in favour of Rathna Mudaliyar, Thanjammal @ Amirthammal and Arumugam. The daughter, Krishnaveni Ammal had married P.V. Varadharaj and was living in her marital house. Thanjammal @ Amirthammal also obtined patta and after her death, Arumugam also obtained patta. His wife was Sarojiniammal. They had no children. Arumugam died on 27.05.1970. It is stated in the plaint that the 1st defendant is the beneficiary under a will said to have been executed by Sarojiniammal on 10.06.1993 with respect to her share in the property. He is the son of Krishnaveni Ammal/P.V. Varadharaj. 13. It is stated that Sarojiniammal sold the property to the 6th defendant J. Venugopal by registered sale deed dated 31.03.1997. J.Venugopal sold the property by a registered sale deed dated 26.08.2002 to the plaintiff. 14. The 2nd to 5th defendants are the sons and daughter of the 1st defendant. The 1st to 5th defendants entered into a registered partition deed with respect to the suit property on 11.02.2000 on the strength of the will of Sarojiniammal. That document is assailed in the plaint as null and void. 15. The 1st to 5th defendants filed O.S. No. 5725 of 2002 seeking protection of possession against the 6th defendant J. Venugopal and an exparte decree was obtained on 28.02.2003. That decree is also assailed in the plaint as null and void. 16. In the plaint, the plaintiff had not averred that she came to know about the partition deed and the exparte decree only during the police enquiry which enquiry was conducted on a complaint given by the 3rd defendant. 17. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is as follows : “ PART III – SUITS RELATING TO DECLARATIONS Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 58. 17. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is as follows : “ PART III – SUITS RELATING TO DECLARATIONS Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 58. To obtain any other declaration Three years When the right to sue first accrues” [Emphasis Supplied] 18. It is seen the suit is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation, since the right to sue first accrued when the plaintiff had knowledge of the registered partition deed. She had not pleaded any date in the plaint. It must therefore be held she came to know it atleast on the date of the sale deed in her favour, 26.08.2002 since the partition deed is a registered document reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate. By any mathematical calculation, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is not a mixed question of law and fact as stated by the learned Judge in his order. That is a general dictum. 19. The averments in the plaint will have to be scanned. The plaintiff has never disclaimed knowledge of the registered documents pertaining to the suit property, particularly the partition deed. Her purchase is subsequent to the partition deed. Her title is clouded by the said document. Her cause of action first arose, when, on the date of her purchase, the document was reflected in the encumbrance certificate. The plaintiff cannot claim ignorance of the same and seek indulgence of the Court. 20. With respect to the exparte decree, the plaintiff has not alleged fraud any where in the plaint. 21. Order VI Rule 4 of CPC is as follows : “4. Particulars to be given where necessary In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. ” [Emphasis Supplied] 22. It is seen that fraud has to be pleaded in explicit terms. The plaintiff has actually not pleaded fraud. She has not even mentioned about the partition deed, or the exparte decree or even about the police complaint in the cause of action paragraph. A copy of the police complaint has not been filed along with the plaint. 23. It is seen that fraud has to be pleaded in explicit terms. The plaintiff has actually not pleaded fraud. She has not even mentioned about the partition deed, or the exparte decree or even about the police complaint in the cause of action paragraph. A copy of the police complaint has not been filed along with the plaint. 23. The police complaint may be a cause of action to institute a suit seeking protection of possession. But it must be noted that it was the 3rd defendant who had lodged the complaint. That cannot be a cause to assail a registered document and a lawfully obtained Court Decree after nearly 2 decades. Explanation will have to be given why the documents were not questioned at the earliest point of time. 24. As held in K.Akbar Ali Vs. K.Umar Khan and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 238 : “5. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the question before the Court is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law, on the face of the averments contained in the plaint itself. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC the Court is not to look into the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff or the defence raised by the defendant. 7. In any case, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint requires a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole. As held by this Court in ITC v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal reported in (1998) 2 SCC 70 : AIR 1998 SC 634 , clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint. Similarly the Court must see that the bar in law of the suit is not camouflaged by devious and clever drafting of the plaint. Moreover, the provisions of Order VII Rue 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court.” [Emphasis Supplied] 25. The said dictum directly applies to the facts of this case. Viewed from any angle, the suit is barred by limitation. Moreover, the provisions of Order VII Rue 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court.” [Emphasis Supplied] 25. The said dictum directly applies to the facts of this case. Viewed from any angle, the suit is barred by limitation. There is also no cause of action for instituting the suit. The issue whether the suit had been properly valued and proper court fees had been paid submerges into insignificance. 26. The order under revision is therefore interfered with and the order of dismissal of I.A. No. 4833 of 2017 dated 05.02.2020 is set aside and the said I.A. No. 4833 of 2017 is allowed. 27. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 28. The plaint in O.S. No. 5861 of 2016 on the file of the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai is directed to be rejected.