1 2025:CGHC:42213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 75 of 2025 1 - Sarvesh Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Triveni Lal Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o M.I.G. Duplex No.-101, Phase-4, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No.-1). 2 - Smt. Sushma Dubey W/o Shri Manoj Dubey Aged About 43 Years R/o Flat No.-560, Block No.-24, Kanchan Housing Board Colony, Near Khamardih Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No.-4) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Manoranjan Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Shatrughan Pandey Aged About 46 Years R/o House No.-82, Housing Board Colony, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Plaintiff) 2 - Sanjay Kumar Verma S/o Shri Bharat Lal Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o A-182, Ward No.-2, Sainath Chowk, Vikas Nagar, Gudhiyaari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.-2) 3 - Smt. Sarita Rajbhaar W/o Shri Chandrashekhar Rajbhaar Aged About 25 Years R/o Sundarpur, Aamgaon, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh (Defendant No.-3) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following prayer:- “I. To Stay the proceedings in Civil Suit No. 90A/2023 pending before the Court of 9th Additional District Judge, Raipur. II. Pass any other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the Learned Sub-Ordinate Court, vide orders dated 27/07/2024 and 24/08/2024, rejected the application preferred by the present petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC in Civil Suit No. 90-A/2023, filed by respondent No. 1, seeking cancellation of the Power of Attorney dated 12/04/2018 as well as cancellation of the sale deeds dated 03/07/2019 and 16/08/2019 pertaining to land bearing Khasra No. 219/16 admeasuring 736 sq. ft., 690 sq. ft. and 828 sq. ft. situated at Village Gondwara (Ganga Nagar), P.H. No. 108/37, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The said suit has filed after a lapse of more than three years from the date of execution of the 3 sale deeds, is barred by limitation as settled by catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which hold that the limitation period for cancellation of an instrument such as a sale deed is three years. Despite the petitioners having specifically apprised the Court that Petitioner No. 1/Defendant No. 1 executed the sale deeds during the subsistence of the Power of Attorney dated 12/04/2018, under which respondent No. 1/Plaintiff had expressly authorized him in Clause Nos. 4 and 5 to sell the property, and despite raising objections regarding non- payment of appropriate court fees for cancellation of the Power of Attorney and sale deeds, the learned Sub-Ordinate Court has failed to appreciate the submissions and documentary evidence on record. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non- application of judicial mind, ignores material facts and settled legal principles, and is thus arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present revision has been preferred against the order of the learned trial Court whereby the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been erroneously rejected. He further submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled legal position that when the plaint on the face of it discloses that the suit is barred by limitation, the same 4 is liable to be rejected at the very threshold without subjecting the parties to prolonged trial. Learned counsel further submits that the claim put forth by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation, yet the learned trial Court has not adverted to this vital aspect of the matter. It is further urged that apart from the bar of limitation, the suit as framed is clearly hit by the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in as much as the plaintiff has sought a declaratory relief without seeking the consequential reliefs that were necessary and available to him in law. In absence of such consequential reliefs, the suit is not maintainable and deserves outright rejection. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the trial Court has committed a manifest error in ignoring these legal infirmities, and hence, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present revision be allowed, the impugned order be set aside, and the plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the very inception itself. 4. It is further submitted that apart from the aforesaid grounds, there are several other grounds available to the applicant in support of the present revision. However, the applicant, at this stage, has not chosen to press or agitate the other available grounds, particularly with regard to the issue of proper valuation of the suit and the consequential affixation of adequate and appropriate 5 court fees, and, therefore, the present submissions are confined only to the grounds already urged. 5. None for the respondents No. 1 & 2 despite service of notice. 6. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 3, whereas the service report indicates that the notice is still awaited. 7. The legal position with regard to the adjudication of an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is now well settled by a catena of judicial pronouncements. It is a firmly established principle that, while considering an application under the said provision, the Court is required to confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint. The Court, at this stage, is not permitted to travel beyond the plaint or to examine the defence projected by the defendants in their written statement or in any other pleadings. In other words, the pleas, contentions or objections raised by the defendants cannot be looked into for the purpose of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The test which the Court is obliged to apply is whether, upon a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, it discloses a cause of action or is barred by any law. Thus, the determination at this preliminary stage has to rest entirely on the foundation of the plaint averments, without being influenced by any material or defence sought to be introduced by the opposite party. 6 8. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it is a settled proposition of law that the question of limitation is not purely a question of law, but rather a mixed question of law and fact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments rendered in numerous petitions, has consistently held that such an issue cannot be adjudicated merely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since determination of limitation involves examination of factual aspects as well as legal principles, the same cannot be conclusively decided at the threshold stage of considering an application for rejection of plaint. 9. With regard to the contention that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, it is imperative to note that the applicability of this provision cannot be determined merely on the basis of the assertions or contentions raised by the defendants. The question of whether the suit falls within the ambit of Section 34 requires a careful examination of the evidence on record. Only after a thorough evaluation of the evidence can it be adjudicated whether the provisions of Section 34 are attracted in the present case. Mere allegations or defenses raised by the defendants, without substantiation through evidence, cannot form the basis for deciding the matter at this stage. 7 10. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter in their entirety, it is evident that the rejection order passed by the learned trial Court is well-reasoned and fully justified. There exists no valid ground to interfere with the order at this stage. Accordingly, the petition seeking interference with the trial Court’s order is devoid of merit and is, therefore, hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat