[2025:RJ-JP:35754] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 148/2023 Smt. Jeti Devi W/o Shri Gopal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Bhudol Tehsil And District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Chandribai D/o Late Shri Pratap W/o Shri Ramdev, Aged About 72 Years, Original R/o Bhudol Tehsil Ajmer At Present Amar Kua, Dolya Kota Through Power Of Attorney Prahlad S/o Shri Chandra, R/o Village Bhudol, Tehsil And District Ajmer. 2. Prahlad S/o Shri Chandra, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Bhudol, Tehsil And District Ajmer. 3. Shaitan S/o Shri Chandra, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Bhudol, Tehsil And District Ajmer. 4. Ramlal S/o Shri Chandra, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Bhudol, Tehsil And District Ajmer. 5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector Ajmer. 6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Ajmer. 7. Sub Registrar First/ Second, Registration Office Jaipur Road, Ajmer. 8. Chandra S/o Shri Pratap, R/o Bhudol Tehsil And District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sudesh Kasana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aayush Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 02/07/2025 1. Instant S.B. Civil Revision Petition is preferred by petitioner defendant No.1 aggrieved from dismissal of application under [2025:RJ-JP:35754] (2 of 8) [CR-148/2023] Order VII Rule 11 rws 151 CPC on 11.05.2023 in civil suit No.251/2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Ajmer, Dist. Ajmer. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner defendant No.1 while referring and relying upon judgment in case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Ors. (AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1921) has submitted that plaintiffs Chandrabai, Prahlad, Shaitan and Ramlal have filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in relation to agricultural land. She further submitted that for agricultural land mentioned in Para 1 of Plaint, sale deed has been executed on 04.08.2005 and same was registered on 09.08.2005 and claiming a right from birth, the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against present petitioner that present petitioner who is defendant no.1 has filed a revenue suit wherein notices were issued to plaintiffs and they came to know about sale of said land but despite that they have filed current suit on 24-05-2022. She also submitted that plaintiffs are neither khatedar/tenant nor such declaration can be sought by them, as civil court is not competent to declare them as khatedar. She further submitted that the suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation as a suit can be filed within a period of three years under Article 58 and 59 of Limitation Act but current suit is filed after 17 years. She further submitted that the trial court has committed serious error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent plaintiff and he submitted that petitioners have a birth right in the said land and on the basis of ancestral right in the land [2025:RJ-JP:35754] (3 of 8) [CR-148/2023] they have filed a civil suit for cancellation and injunction. She further submitted that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and a triable issue and same can be considered after recording the evidence. He also submitted that whether a suit is maintainable or not and barred by law of limitation are mixed question of facts and law and the trial court has rightly dismissed the application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record along with the judgment as referred by learned counsel for petitioner. 5. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petitioner that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) have filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 04.08.2005 registered on 09.08.2005 in favor of defendant No. 1 along with permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land mentioned in para number 1 of plaint. After receiving the notice defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement but also has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial court on two grounds firstly bar of jurisdiction of civil court under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 and also filing of suit after a delay of 17 years. The Trial court has dismissed application on 11.05.2023. 6. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; [2025:RJ-JP:35754] (4 of 8) [CR-148/2023] (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 returned 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 provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper 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 form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, 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.” 7. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code. 8. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant [2025:RJ-JP:35754] (5 of 8) [CR-148/2023] Charity Commissioner : (2004) 3 SCC 137 and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation. 9. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. [2025:RJ-JP:35754] (6 of 8) [CR-148/2023] 11. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, but the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint. 13. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law. 14. The material on record indicated that sale deed was registered on 09.08.2005 whereas civil suit is filed on 24.05.2022. The background mentioned in the plaint indicate that Pratap has acquired land and after his death he left behind son Chandra and daughter Chandri, who were class-I heirs. It is evident that [2025:RJ-JP:35754] (7 of 8) [CR-148/2023] Chandra is alive and he is defendant no. 5 in the suit. The plaintiffs have claimed that defendant No. 5 has unauthorizedly sold ancestral property (even their share) to defendant no. 1. Here in this case, the plaintiffs have not filed any revenue record to show that the land in question is mutated in their name after death of Pratap. The material on record relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner clearly indicate that revenue record is in name of defendant no. 5. It is also evident that the sale deed was registered on 09.08.2005 and same was challenged in May 2022 which is almost after 17 years. The age mentioned by plaintiffs indicate that Chandri Bai is 71 years old, Prahlad is 32 years old, Shaitan is 27 years old and Ramlal is 38 years old on date of institution of suit meaning thereby plaintiff no. 2 to 4 have attained adulthood way before filing of suit, but not in last three years from May, 2022. 15. Article 58 and 59 of Limitation Act provides that a suit for cancellation is required to be filed within a period of 3 years from date of execution of instrument or from date of knowledge. Herein, 17 years period is too much and it is impossible that any of the plaintiffs were not aware about sale of agricultural land by Defendant No. 5 to Defendant No. 1 - (present petitioner). Moreover, the plaintiffs are not recorded Khatedar or tenant on record. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pyare Lal Vs Shubhendra Pilania (Supra) after considering provision of Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and similarly placed circumstances has held that unless Khatidari right is declared in favour of plaintiff, he [2025:RJ-JP:35754] (8 of 8) [CR-148/2023] has no right to file a suit for cancellation of sale deed of agriculture land.. 16. Here in this case, there is no right on record in favour of plaintiffs and the suit is also barred by Law of Limitation. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed serious error while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 17. In view of discussion made herein, above the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 11.05.2023 in civil suit No.251/2022 is set aside. As a result, application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed in civil suit preferred by Respondent No. 1 to 4 is hereby rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 18. No order as to cost. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /87