2-CRA-11-2025.DOC Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.11/2025 SHRIVALLABH V. SHELDENKAR @ SRIVALABA CINAEKA SINAI XELDEKAR & 20 ORS. … APPLICANTS Versus UMESH GAUNCO DESSAI & 44 ORS. … RESPONDENTS Mr P. Talaulikar with Ms Laxmi Sawant, Advs. for the Applicants. CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED: 25th JUNE 2025 P.C. : 1. he challenge in this petition is to an order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the District Court rejecting the petitioners' application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. he application seeks rejection of the plaint on two grounds, one being that it was barred by limitation and the second is that it did not disclose a cause of action against the petitioners who are the defendants no.1 to 21. 2. Perusal of the plaint would show that a cause of action has been pleaded against the petitioners which are the set of defendants no.1 to 21, in that the plaintifs claim that the Deeds of Sale signed by them along with defendants no.34 to 37, did not contain the correct disclosure of the survey numbers that were covered by the original property, whose registration number is 1/346, which corresponds to Matriz No.24. It is the petitioners' 25th June 2025 2-CRA-11-2025.DOC case that the Deed of Sale relates back to year 2002 and the suit is barred by limitation. However, a perusal of the plaint would disclose that it is the plaintifs' case that they gained knowledge of the error in the Sale Deed only in the year 2020 after which they iled the suit in 2023, within the period of limitation. his would require determination of whether the knowledge of the error in the Sale Deed could be related to the date of the same i.e. 2002 or whether it is the one pleaded in the plaint i.e. 2022. Essentially, this is a matter that requires passing of a decree after evidence is recorded and the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold on these disputed facts. 3. Insofar as the argument that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, as referred above, the cause of action according to the plaintifs was as the date when it came to their knowledge that the Deed of Sale was deicient in the correct extent of the property. According to the plaintifs this gave them the cause of action to seek declaration that the land under Registration No.1/346 corresponding to Matriz No.24 extended to ten survey numbers which are subject matter of the suit. On the face of the plaint the cause of action has been pleaded and it cannot be said that the suit sufers from any non-disclosure of cause of action. 4. he District Court has correctly considered these two questions and has rejected the application. here is no cause to interfere with the same in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5. he petition is dismissed. No cost. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 25th June 2025 Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 26/06/2025 15:13:32