( 2025:JHHC:24202 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1083 of 2024 1. Rajendra Mahto 2. Kailash mahto 1&2, both S/o late Jagarnath Mahto 3. Paritosh Kumar Mahto 4. Uma Shankar Mahto 5. Batesh Kumar Mahto @ Batesh Kumar 3,4 & 5, all S/o late Saligram Mahto 6. Ritesh Kumar, S/o Late Sitaram Mahto 7. Mahadeo Mahto, S/o Late Ram Prasad Mahto 8. Makardhwaj Mahto 9. Ranjeet Mahto @ Ranjit Mahto 10. Hemant Kumar Mahto 8, 9 and 10, all /o late Banshi Mahto 11. Anita Devi, W/o Late Koushyal Kishor Mahto 12. Rajeshwar Mahto 13. Keshaw Kumar Mahto @ Keshab Kumar Mahto 12 And 13, both sons of late Bhim Mahto 14. Fani Bhushan Mahto 15. Manilal Mahto 14 And 15, both sons of Late Jado Nath Mahto 16. Pawan Kumar Mahto, S/o Late Anil Kumar Mahto All resident of village-Baradih, P.O.- Bandhdih, P.S.-Jaridih, District-Bokaro- Bokaro (Jharkhand). ..... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Kapura Devi @ Kapura Devi, W/o Duryodhan Prasad Mahto 2. Manoj Kumar Prajapati @ Manoj Kumar Prjapati, S/o Duryodhan Prasad Mahto 3. Hiralal Prajapati, S/o Duryodhan Prasad Mahto. 1, 2 and 3 all r/o village-Baradih, P.O.-Bandhdih, P.S.-Jaridih, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand) 4. Sah Mehtab Ahmad, S/o Late Sah Aftab Ahmad, R/o Village-Sahjowar Road, Munger, P.O.-Munger, P.S. and District-Munger, At present resident of-213, Patliputra Colony, Patna, P.O.-Patliputra, P.s. Patliputra, District-Patna (Bihar). … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kr Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate Mr. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate For Opp. Party Nos. 1-3 :Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Chainika, Advocate ------ 08/ Dated : 14.08.2025. ( 2025:JHHC:24202 ) 1. The plaintiffs/ petitioners are before this Court against the order of rejection of plaint passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 14/2022. 2. The plaintiffs filed Original Title Suit No. 10/2021 for right, title and possession over the suit land and to declare the registered sale deed No. 6736 dated 17.12.1966 to be ab-initio void and further prayer for restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession. 3. The defendants-opposite parties filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC on the ground that the sale deed was executed in 1966 and the period for limitation for cancellation of deed was three years, whereas the suit was filed in 2021 which was hopelessly barred by limitation. It has nowhere been denied by the plaintiffs that the suit was executed by the ancestor of the present plaintiffs. Non-payment of part consideration amount could not be the basis for cancellation of sale deed as the title passes on the execution of the sale deed. 4. The Trial Court rejected the petition u/o VII Rule 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC for rejection of plaint against which the Misc. Appeal was preferred by the defendants. Learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal against which the instant Civil Misc. Petition has been preferred. 5. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has argued and rightly so, that order rejecting the petition for rejection of plaint was not an appealable order under Order 43 of the CPC, therefore the Miscellaneous Appeal before the District Judge was not maintainable. Therefore, the order passed was without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has defended the impugned order on the ground that this is a suit which was filed in 2021 for cancellation of the registered sale deed executed in 1966 and, therefore, it was hopefully barred by limitation. The possession of the defendant was declared way back in 2012 in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. brought by the petitioners. Despite this, no step was taken on their part for cancellation of the deed and hence, the suit is also otherwise barred.Further, it is submitted that the issue of maintainability was never raised at the time of hearing of Misc. Appeal before the District Judge. 7. From the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on considering the materials on record, it is evident that the Suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was filed for cancellation of the sale deed executed in 1966. The application for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed by the trial court and has been allowed in appeal by the District Judge. ( 2025:JHHC:24202 ) 8. Rejection of plaint passed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC comes within the meaning of a decree under Section 2(2) of the CPC. It is not an appealable under order 43 of the CPC. 9. Under the circumstance, this Court is of the view that the order impugned is not sustainable for the following reasons: - Firstly, theorder rejecting the petition filed by the defendant for rejection of plaint was not anappealable under Order 43 of the CPC. Therefore, the District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal arising from the said order. Secondly, the rejection of plaint cannot be ordered on the ground of limitation as it is a mixed question of law and fact. 10. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. 11. However, since the question of limitation has been raised and the suit is for the cancellation of sale deed, therefore, the learned Trial Court will hear the suit on the preliminary issue: Whether the prayer for cancellation of sale deed was barred by limitation. This issue will be decided before the Court enters into full fledged trial, and if the relief is barred by limitation, the suit shall be dismissed as barred by limitation. 12. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. Sandeep/Abha/- (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)