[2025:RJ-JP:23943] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 199/2023 The Ajmer Dry Of Simon Core Persian Musmimat Di Villi Corporation Limited And Bishop Of Ajmer, Through Its Institutional Director. ----Petitioner-Defendant Versus 1. Ashutosh Haritwal S/o Late Shri Laxminarayan, R/o 101, C-1, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)-302016, Presently R/o G-18, Riico Industrial Area, Kolana, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. ---Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Office Of Sub-Registrar, Baswa, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. 3. Office Of Sub-Registrar, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa. ----Proforma Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 30/06/2025 1. The instant Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner-defendant aggrieved from the order dated 20.07.2023 in Civil Suit No.68/2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC preferred by the present petitioner-defendant was dismissed. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant has submitted that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed dated 18.08.1960/20.08.1960 as null and void with ancillary relief of permanent injunction, in a Civil Court. He further submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (2 of 12) [CR-199/2023] the property in question is an agricultural land and same is mentioned in para-1 and 4 of the plaint. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the averment in plaint clearly indicates that in the revenue record, agricultural land was in the name of Laxminarayan Sharma (father of plaintiff), who expired in 1958 and a sale deed was registered on 20.08.1960 by brother of respondent-plaintiff. He further submitted that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit on the ground that at the time of registration of sale deed he was minor and was under the guardianship of his mother but on 25.06.2021 all of sudden, he came to know about the agricultural land of his father and on enquiry, he came to know about sale deed executed on 18.08.1960 and registered on 20.08.1960 by his 19 years old brother Karuna Shankar. He further submitted that present suit is filed after a delay of 62 years and same is barred by law of limitation. He further submitted that Article 58 of the Limitation Act is applicable in the instant case and a declaratory suit has to be filed within three years after attaining majority by the plaintiff. He further submitted that as per para No.5 of plaint, the age of plaintiff was 12 years in 1960 and he attained majority in 1966 but this suit was filed in the year 2022 which clearly indicates that the suit is barred by law. He further referred the provisions under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and submitted that no suit can be filed after a delay of three years from date of attaining the adulthood. He further submitted that just with clever drafting, a suit cannot be considered within time. [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (3 of 12) [CR-199/2023] 3. Learned Senior Advocate further referred the provision of Section 24 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 and submitted that the Court-Fees is required to be paid on basis of market value of the property not as assessed by plaintiff. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application considering the grounds and objection raised by the petitioner-defendant as the objection requires adjudication after recording evidence of the parties. He also submitted that while considering application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only averment made in plaint is required to be considered and no amount of defence can be considered by the Court. He also submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Salim D. Agboatwala and Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Ors. : (2021) 17 SCC 100 has held that the plea regarding the date on which the plaintiff gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It is a triable issue and suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold. He further referred judgment in case of Chhotanben and another Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and others : AIR 2019 SC (Civil) 683 and submitted that a plaint cannot be rejected whether question of limitation is not a triable issue. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and Another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others : (2015) 8 SCC 331 and submitted that if the averment in the plaint ex facie does not [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (4 of 12) [CR-199/2023] disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred by law then only it can be thrown out but not otherwise. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the plaintiff was minor in 1960 and he was not aware about transfer of his share by his brother Karuna Shankar and only in June, 2021, he came to know about his share in the agricultural land left by his father and on an enquiry he came to know about the sale deed. He submitted that even in case of Shri Mukund Bhawan Trust Vs. Shrimant Chhatrpati Udayan Raje : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. He also submitted that the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed which was challenged by him. Therefore, Section 24(a) of Court Fee Act is not applicable in the instant case. He further submitted that only Section 38 is applicable and the plaintiff has accordingly valued the suit and if the Court directs the plaintiff to pay more fee then plaintiff can pay Court fee as per finding of the Court but to maintain the suit the valuation and Court fee is sufficient. 6. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner- defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent- plaintiff. Perused the material placed on record along with written submissions of both the parties and the judgments referred. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1- plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed dated 18.08.1960/20.08.1960 and permanent injunction on the ground that agricultural land mentioned in para No.1 and 4 [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (5 of 12) [CR-199/2023] belongs to his father Laxminarayan Sharma, who expired in 1958 and after his death when the age of the plaintiff was 12 years, his elder brother Karuna Shankar who was 19 years old had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. Alleging conspiracy arrived at in execution of sale deed causing loss to plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed a civil suit on the ground that on 25.06.2021 he acquired knowledge about land of his father and on enquiry he came to know about sale of his 1/2 share by his brother Karuna Shankar without any right. After receipt of notice, defendant No.1 has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 CPC on the ground that the suit is filed after a substantial delay and suit property is more valuable than assessment by plaintiff and after improper Court fee paid by plaintiff. Learned trial Court after considering the application has dismissed the same on the ground that the objections are mixed question of fact and law. 8. 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; (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 : [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (6 of 12) [CR-199/2023] (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.” 9. 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. 10. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant 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. 11. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (7 of 12) [CR-199/2023] 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (8 of 12) [CR-199/2023] 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. In case of Mallavva and Anr. Vs. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (since dead) by Legal Heirs and Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Suprme Court has considered Article 58 of the Limitation Act 1963 in relation to Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 and noticed the departure as made from earlier Section. It was held that the limitation period should be considered with respect to the substantive relief of cancellation of sale deed which would be three years from the date of knowledge of sale deed sought to be cancelled. 17. In case of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Anr. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered various judgments on issue under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (9 of 12) [CR-199/2023] further observed that the spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. The observation further indicate that the law of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting the plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record. However, in cases like this, where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial Court. 18. In case of Salim D. Agboatwala and Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that on basis of cause of action arose to plaintiff whether notice including constructive notice or knowledge of essential facts which are basis of the cause of action, the Court has to determine the issue of limitation. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the ground of limitation is a triable issue and suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold. In case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and Another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others (supra) while considering the provision under Order VII Rule 11 CPC it was held that the defence of defendants as mentioned in written statement is immaterial at this stage and a suit cannot be dismissed on the ground raised in written statement. 19. Having considered the legal position as mentioned hereinabove, it is settled position of law that if a suit is filed without accrual of a cause of action or is barred by law including [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (10 of 12) [CR-199/2023] law of limitation, then same can be dismissed by invoking power under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. If there is any objection with regard to valuation and Court fee then same can be considered either as a preliminary issue or after recording evidence. 20. Here in this case, a perusal of plaint and documents annexed with plaint indicate that plaintiff Ashutosh Haritwal has filed a civil suit on 22.08.2022 for cancellation of sale deed executed on 18.08.1960/20.08.1960. Admittedly, the age of plaintiff was 12 years in year 1960 and he attained the age of majority in year 1966 and attained age of 21 years in year 1969. The suit is not filed within 3 years from the year 1966 or 1969. 21. The plaintiff has mentioned that one of the relative Babulal Sharma has apprised him on 25.06.2021 about agricultural land of his father, is 61 years after the registration of sale deed. The plaintiff who is residing in a village and after death of his father, his upbringing and well being became dependent on his mother and brother. The plaintiff has not made his brother as a party but he has made some allegations against his brother for conspiracy with the petitioner. The plaintiff in para No.5 has mentioned that his mother Durga Devi was alive and his brother is not having any right to take decision on his behalf. Here in this case, the suit is filed after 62 years of sale deed. On an average, 62 years is a life span of an individual. The facts narrated in the plaint clearly indicate that the age of plaintiff may be around 70 years or more and in such a situation filing of a suit to reopen a registered sale deed executed in 1960 is something which itself is sufficient to [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (11 of 12) [CR-199/2023] invoke power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. It is also on record that the details of land mentioned by plaintiff also indicate that it is an agriculture land having a revenue record and after attaining majority, the plaintiff himself should have enquired about the properties left by his father and within reasonable time he can make enquiry and take appropriate steps if he is aggrieved from disputed instrument. 22. In the instant case, the period of 62 years is exorbitant and substantial, therefore, and from no angle the case of plaintiff falls within definition of mixed question of fact and law. Having considered the plaint and particularly the averments made by plaintiff, it is apparent that there is no justification of delay particularly when Order VII Rule 6 CPC provides that if a suit is filed after a prescribed period of limitation, the plaint must explicitly state the grounds for claiming an exemption from the law of limitation. The plaintiff is required to explain why the suit is being filed after delay and why Court should still consider his case despite the delay. 23. The grounds for exemption are normally fraud or misrepresentation, legal disability and mistaken identity but in order to fall a plaint under Order VII Rule 6, it is duty of the plaintiff to state clear facts in the plaint but he mentioned about knowledge and further enquiry and receipt of copy of sale deed to claim. The plaintiff has not mentioned reasons of delay between August, 1960 and June, 2021 which indicates that the plaintiff has not filed his suit within prescribed period of limitation. [2025:RJ-JP:23943] (12 of 12) [CR-199/2023] 24. Having considered the facts of the case, it is apparent on record that the suit of plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation and in such a situation, the trial Court is required to exercise jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC to reject the suit of plaintiff. 25. The judgments as referred by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff are not applicable as there is no doubt about the fact that the suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation and there is no ground to consider the period of consideration as mixed question of fact and law. Thus, the suit is barred by law of limitation and same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. 26. The ground of valuation and improper Court fee can be considered as a mixed question of fact and law but law of limitation in facts of present case is only a question of law, therefore, the instant revision petition is liable to be allowed. 27. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 20.07.2023 in Civil Suit No.68/2022 is set aside. As a result, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed and Civil Suit No.68/2022 filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff is hereby rejected. 28. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. 29. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/79-sup