WP(C) 241/2022 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI CRP(IO) Nos. 257/2026 & 258/2026 I. CRP(IO) No.257/2026 M/s Tatva Interior, Being represented by its Proprietor/Manager Shri Sashi Agarwal, S/o Late Surajmal Agarwal, Makum Road, near R.C. Memorial Hospital, Tinsukia Town, PO-Hukanpukhuri, PS & District-Tinsukia, Assam. ……Petitioner. -Versus- 1. Shri Dinesh Kumar Agarwala, S/o Late Keshoram Agarwala, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 2. Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwala, S/o Late Keshoram Agarwala, Resident of 22 Lee Road, Bhagyakul Mansion, Block B, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 3. Shri Navin Agarwala, S/o Late Radheshyam Agarwala, Resident of 37, Diamond Harbour Road, Shivamani Apartments, Flat #9A, Kolkata-700038, West Bengal. 4. Shri Rakesh Agarwala, S/o Late Radheshyam Agarwala, Resident of Rameshwar Apartment, 19A, Sarat Bose Road, Sreepally Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 5. Smt. Sunita Agarwala, GAHC010119132026 2026:GAU-AS:9952 WP(C) 241/2022 W/o Late Rajendra Agarwala, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 6. Shri Sidharth Agarwala, S/o Late Rajendra Agarwala, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. All are being represented by their lawfully constituted attorney, namely, Shri Nikhil Agarwala, S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwala, Resident of 22 Lee Road, Bhagyakul Mansion, Block B, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. ……Respondents/Plaintiffs. 7. Shri Rajesh Agarwala, S/o Late Radheshyam Agarwala, Resident of Rameshwar Apartment, 19A, Sarat Bose Road, Sreepally, Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 8. Smt. Kanika Bansal, D/o Late Rajendra Agarwala, Resident of Silver Spring 5, Eastern Metropolitan Bypass, Tangra, Kolkata-700015, West Bengal. ……Proforma Respondents/Proforma Defendant Nos.7 & 8. 9. M/s Assam Frontier Wood Products, A partnership concern, having its head office at Ledo Town, PO-Ledo, PS-Margherita, District-Tinsukia, Assam, being represented by its partners, namely, 1. Shri Manoj Beria, 2. Smt. Sudha Beria, 3. Shri Suresh Beria, 4. Smt. Madhavi Beria, All are having their permanent residence at 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. WP(C) 241/2022 10. Shri Manoj Beria, S/o Late Laxmi Prasad Beria, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 11. Smt. Sudha Beria, W/o Shri Manoj Beria, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 12. Shri Suresh Beria, S/o Late Hanumanbux Beria, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 13. Smt. Madhavi Beria, W/o Shri Suresh Beria, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. All are the partners of M/s Assam Frontier Wood Products, Having their alternative address at Ledo Town, PO-Ledo, PS-Margherita, District-Tinsukia, Assam. ……Proforma Respondents/Defendant Nos.1 to 5. For the Petitioner : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Adv., Mr. M. Sahewalla, Ms. S. Todi, Mr. H.K. Sarma. ……Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. R.J. Das (For Caveator). ……Advocate. II. CRP(IO) No.258/2026 1. M/s Assam Frontier Wood Products, A partnership concern, having its head office at Ledo Town, WP(C) 241/2022 PO-Ledo, PS-Margherita, District-Tinsukia, Assam, being represented by its partners, namely, 1. Shri Manoj Beria, 2. Smt. Sudha Beria, 3. Shri Suresh Beria, 4. Smt. Madhavi Beria, All are having their permanent residence at 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 2. Shri Manoj Beria, S/o Late Laxmi Prasad Beria, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 3. Smt. Sudha Beria, W/o Shri Manoj Beria, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 4. Shri Suresh Beria, S/o Late Hanumanbux Beria, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 5. Smt. Madhavi Beria, W/o Shri Suresh Beria, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. All are the partners of M/s Assam Frontier Wood Products, Having their alternative address at Ledo Town, PO-Ledo, PS-Margherita, District-Tinsukia, Assam. ……Petitioners/Defendant Nos.1 to 5. -Versus- 1. Shri Dinesh Kumar Agarwala, S/o Late Keshoram Agarwala, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. WP(C) 241/2022 2. Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwala, S/o Late Keshoram Agarwala, Resident of 22 Lee Road, Bhagyakul Mansion, Block B, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 3. Shri Navin Agarwala, S/o Late Radheshyam Agarwala, Resident of 37, Diamond Harbour Road, Shivamani Apartments, Flat #9A, Kolkata-700038, West Bengal. 4. Shri Rakesh Agarwala, S/o Late Radheshyam Agarwala, Resident of Rameshwar Apartment, 19A, Sarat Bose Road, Sreepally, Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 5. Smt. Sunita Agarwala, W/o Late Rajendra Agarwala, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. 6. Shri Sidharth Agarwala, S/o Late Rajendra Agarwala, Resident of 28/C Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. All are being represented by their lawfully constituted attorney, namely, Shri Nikhil Agarwala, S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwala, Resident of 22 Lee Road, Bhagyakul Mansion, Block B, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal. ……Respondents/Plaintiffs. For the Petitioner : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Adv., Mr. M. Sahewalla, Ms. S. Todi, Mr. H.K. Sarma. ……Advocates. WP(C) 241/2022 For the Respondents : Mr. R.J. Das (For Caveator). ……Advocate. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Date on which judgment is reserved :- 14.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment :- :- 20.07.2 20.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? :- N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? :- Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and also heard Mr. R.J. Das, learned counsel for the respondents in both the petitions, (No(s). CRP(IO) Nos. 257/2026 & 258/2026). 2. As subject matter of challenge in both these civil revision petitions (No(s). CRP(IO) Nos. 257/2026 & 258/2026) is the order, dated 16.03.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. WP(C) 241/2022 Division), Tinsukia, in Misc.(J) Case Nos.49/2025 and 50/2025, in connection with Title Suit No.15/2025, and as a common question of law is involved in both the petitions, and also as agreed upon by the learned counsel for both the parties, it is decided to dispose of both these petitions by this common judgment and order. 3. These revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner(s) have challenged the order dated 16.03.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tinsukia, in Misc.(J) Case Nos.49/2025 and 50/2025, in connection with Title Suit No.15/2025. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 16.03.2026, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tinsukia (Trial Court, hereinafter) has rejected the petitions filed by the petitioner(s) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. 4. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the respondents herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No.15/2025, before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tinsukia. The petitioners herein entered appearance and contested the same by filing written statements. He also submits that the suit was apperently filed after the period of limitation, for which the petitioner(s) herein by preferring applications, under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation as well as WP(C) 241/2022 no cause of action. Mr. Sahewalla further submits that vide impugned orders, dated 16.03.2026, the learned Trial Court dismissed the Misc.(J) Case Nos.49/2025 and 50/2025, in Title Suit No.15/2025, on the ground that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided at the preliminary stage, merely on the basis of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Mr. Sahewalla further submits that being aggrieved; the petitioner(s) approached this Court by filing the present petitions challenging the correctness of the orders, dated 16.03.2026, passed by the learned Trial Court. 4.1. Mr. Sahewalla also submits that the learned Trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in not considering the petitions filed by the petitioner(s), under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC on its own merits. Further, Mr. Sahewalla submits that the learned Trial Court has erroneously held that the grounds taken by the defendants for rejection of plaint required detailed examination during the trial and cannot be decided at this stage under limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. However, it has failed to consider the fact that the ground for filing such petition is in connection with limitation, which is apparent upon a bare perusal of the plaint, that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. 4.2. Mr. Sahewalla also submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the admitted position on the part of the plaintiff made in paragraph No.26 of the plaint and the learned Trial Court has also failed to consider the date of execution of the Deed of WP(C) 241/2022 Dissolution, which was 01.04.1974, and that it had also failed to consider that the cause of action arose on 01.04.1974 and the said Deed of Dissolution of partnership deed remained unchallenged for last 50 years and the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the plaint in its entirety and in a meaningful manner as the said plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless and drafted in a clever manner and under such circumstances, Mr. Sahewalla contended to allow these petitions by setting aside impugned order(s) and to reject the plaint. 4.3. In support of his submission, Mr. Sahewalla has referred the following decisions:- (i) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 675; and (ii) Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601. 5. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents, has supported the impugned order(s) passed by the learned Trial Court. Mr. Das submits that while limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue, and also only on the basis of reading of the plaint and it requires detail examination of the facts, which cannot be done while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. WP(C) 241/2022 5.1. Mr. Das further pointed out that the respondents herein, came to know about selling of the land within the family of the respondents by a registered deed only in the year 2024, and the same has been categorically stated in the plaint, and as such, the question of limitation does not arise herein this case, and under such circumstances, he submits that the impugned order(s) suffer from no illegality or irregularity requiring any interference of this Court. 5.2. In support of his submission, Mr. Das has referred the following decisions:- (i) Geetha vs. Nanjundaswamy and others, reported in (2024) 14 SCC 390; (ii) N. Thajudeen vs. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, reported in 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 972; and (iii) P. Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan and others, reported in MANU/SC/0593/2025. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through these petitions and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order(s), dated 16.03.2026, and also gone through the decisions referred by the learned counsel for both the parties. Also carefully gone through the plaint and the written statement, which are annexed to these petitions as Annexures-1 and 2. WP(C) 241/2022 7. It is to be noted here that in both the impugned order(s) dated 16.03.2026, in Misc.(J) Case Nos.49/2025 and 50/2025, in Title Suit No.15/2025, the learned Trial Court, in paragraph No.11 of the impugned order, has observed as under:- “11. In the present case from the perusal of the plaint it cannot be conclusively held at this stage that the suit is barred by limitation. The question relating to the Deed of Dissolution, the nature of rights claimed by the plaintiffs and the alleged cause of action are matters which required adjudication on evidence. Whether the plaintiffs had knowledge of the alleged acts of the defendants and whether the suit is within the limitation are mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided at this primary stage merely on the basis of application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. However, the plaint discloses certain assertion regarding plaintiff's rights over the suit property and alleged acts of the defendants which, prima-facie, constitute a cause of action for filing present suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.” 7.1. It also appears that in arriving at such a decision, the learned Trial Court has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Kumarakurubaran (supra), T. Arivandandam v. T.V. WP(C) 241/2022 Sattyapal, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 and Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557. 8. A perusal of the Order VII Rule 11 CPC, indicates that a plaint can be rejected if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law including the limitation. And this power is to be exercised cautiously and only when the bar is clear and apparent on the face of the plaint, without needing to delve into disputed facts or evidence. 9. It is to be noted here that the issue of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, solely on the ground of limitation, is well settled in a catena of decisions. One of such notable decision is Narne Rama Murthy v. Ravula Somasundaram and others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 614, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “5. We also see no substance in the contention that the suit was barred by limitation and that the courts below should have decided the question of limitation. When limitation is the pure question of law and from the pleadings itself it becomes apparent that a suit is barred by limitation, then, of course, it is the duty of the court to decide limitation at the outset even in the absence of a plea. However, in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation on the face of it, then the facts necessary to prove limitation must be pleaded, WP(C) 241/2022 an issue raised and then proved. In this case the question of limitation is intricately linked with the question whether the agreement to sell was entered into on behalf of all and whether possession was on behalf of all. It is also linked with the plea of adverse possession. Once on facts it has been found that the purchase was on behalf of all and that the possession was on behalf of all, then, in the absence of any open, hostile and overt act, there can be no adverse possession and the suit would also not be barred by limitation. The only hostile act which could be shown was the advertisement issued in 1989. The suit filed almost immediately thereafter.” 10. In the instant case, from a careful perusal of the plaint, it becomes apparent that the cause of action first arose on 01.04.1974, being the date of execution of the Deed of Dissolution of the Partnership; then in the year 1981-82, being the year of getting mutation order passed in the name of the defendant No.1 firm in respect of the Schedule A property; then on 12.09.2016, being the date of execution and registration of the Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.350 of 2016; and thereafter on 26.08.2017, being the date of mutation order passed in favour of the defendant No.3; thereafter on 19.05.2023, being the date of mutation order passed in favour of the defendant No.4; then in the month of July, 2024, being the month when the plaintiffs came to know about the hatching of conspiracy for sale of the Schedule properties; WP(C) 241/2022 and thereafter in the last part of the month of December, 2024, being the month, when the plaintiffs received the jamabandi copies of the schedule properties and came to know about the illegal mutation entry of the defendants in the revenue record. 11. Further, it appears that the Title Suit No. 15 of 2025 was instituted on 14.02.2025. Though the exact date of cause of action has not been mentioned in July 2024 and December 2024, the date of mutation in favour of the defendant No.4 is clearly stated as 19.05.2023. Even, for the sake of argument if we accept the same as date of last cause of action, the Title Suit No. 15 of 2025, having been instituted on 14.02.2025, appears to be within the period of limitation. 12. Thus, the issue of limitation raised in these petitions, is found to be a mixed question of fact and law, and it cannot be ascertained from a bare perusal of the plaint that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. 13. It is well settled that the question of ousting of jurisdiction of the Court arises only when it is a pure question of law. But, when it is a mixed question of fact and law, then, the Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and dismissed the plaint at the very threshold. This proposition is well settled in the case of Narne Rama Murthy (supra), and the same is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently in the case of P. Kumarakurubaran (supra), and reiterate the principle that WP(C) 241/2022 limitation is a mixed question, which requires evidence and cannot, led a summary rejection of the plaint. 14. Thus, having examined the impugned order(s) in Misc.(J) Case Nos.49/2025 and 50/2025, in Title Suit No.15/2025, in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narne Rama Murthy (supra), and also in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that the limitation, being a mixed question of law and facts, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. To the considered opinion of this Court, the issue of limitation, so raised by the petitioner(s) herein, requires detailed examination and also requires to be pleaded and proved during trial. 15. This Court has carefully gone through the decisions referred to by Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) and this Court finds that the said decisions proceed on their own facts and are clearly not applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, merely on the ground of clever drafting, while the plaint clearly reveals the month and year of the cause of action of the suit. 16. On the other hand, the decisions referred to by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents, has supported the contention made by him and also supported the impugned order(s) passed by the learned Trial Court. WP(C) 241/2022 17. In the result, this Court finds no merit in these petitions and accordingly, the same stand dismissed. The parties have to bear their own costs. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE