1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 136 of 2025 1 - Onkar Prasad Gupta S/o Late N.P. Gupta Aged About 59 Years R/o Chetan Chowk Pendra Tahsil Pendra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Now Gaurella-Pendra- Marwahi) Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Kundan Lal Gupta S/o Late N.P. Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o Chetan Chowk Pendra Tashil Pendra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Now Gaurella - Pendra - Marwahi) Chhattisgarh. 2 - Siyaram Gupta S/o Late Motiala Gupta Aged About 67 Years R/o 15 Friends Colony Mahadeva Indanpur Road Nani Allahabad Uttar Pradesh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Now District Gauella-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :- Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra & Mr. Prakash Kumar Mishra, Advocates For State :- Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. Vinay Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 13.08.2025 1. The applicant has prayed for following reliefs in the petition:- “That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and to quash / set impugned order dated aside the 11.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) and further be pleased to reject the plaint filled by the plaintiff in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case are that, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a civil suit on 26.07.2019 against the petitioner and respondents no. 2 & 3 regarding agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 54/2, area 1.73 acres, situated at village Kudkai, Patwari Circle No. 3, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (now Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G.), seeking declaration of the sale deed dated 29.03.2012 as null and void and possession of the suit land. The plaintiff pleaded that he purchased the land on 01.01.1986 from Rameshwar Prasad Kurrey, constructed a kacha room and well, and, being in government service in Sikkim, entrusted it to Narmada Prasad Gupta (petitioner’s father) for care. After Narmada Prasad’s death in 2000, his elder son Rajendra Gupta managed the land. Upon retirement in March 2016, the plaintiff discovered the land was 3 recorded in petitioner’s name through a sale deed allegedly executed via a forged power of attorney dated 29.03.2012 for Rs. 5 lakhs, without his consent. The petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act as the plaintiff himself claimed knowledge of the sale deed in March 2016, and possession relief was ancillary to cancellation of the sale deed. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application on 11.04.2025 (Annexure A-1), holding that since possession was also sought, the limitation period would be 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has illegally rejected his application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It is contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation; however, this aspect was not considered by the trial Court. By order dated 11.04.2025, the application was dismissed on the ground that limitation involves a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided at the threshold in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is not the appropriate stage to adjudicate the question of limitation under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. At this stage, only the averments of the plaint are required to be examined. Since limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, it can only be adjudicated by the trial 4 Court after the parties have led evidence in accordance with law. He relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. arising out of SLP(C) No. 13459/2024, and Rajeev Gupta & Ors. vs. Prashant Garg & Ors. arising out of SLP(C) No. 2998/2022. 5. Although learned counsel for the applicant submits that there exist direct case laws permitting limitation to be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nikhila (supra) and Rajeev Gupta (supra), and further noting that each case is unique in nature, it cannot be held that the point of limitation can invariably be adjudicated in every case at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 6. Accordingly, the trial Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing the application. 7. Consequently, the revision is disposed of. 8. The parties are at liberty to raise the issue of limitation before the concerned trial Court during the course of the trial, where it may be decided after appropriate evidence is led by the parties. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha