1 S. No. 103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 81/2025 GHULAM RASOOL LONE AND ORS …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. I. Sofi, Advocate. Vs. MISRA BEGUM ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 25.02.2025 (ORAL) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner while invoking Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing order dated 29th of January 2025, (for short ‘the impugned order’) passed by Munsiff/Civil Judge (Jr.Dv.) Bandipora) (for short ‘the trial court’) in case titled as “Misra Begum Vs. Gh. Rasool Lone and Ors.”. 2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that a suit for declaration came to be filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein before the trial court on the premise that, upon the death of her father she as a co-sharer inherited the estate left behind by her father, along with the defendants/petitioners herein and upon the failure of the defendants/petitioners herein to provide the share to her, the respondent herein came to file a suit for partition, before the court of Munsiff Bandipora, which suit came to be opposed by the defendants/petitioners herein by filing written statement by placing on record a relinquishment deed claimed to have been executed by her the plaintiff relinquishing her share in the property in favour of defendants/petitioners herein and upon coming to know about the said 2 relinquishment deed, the plaintiff withdrew the suit and filed a subsequent suit for declaration for declaring the said deed as null and void whereunder the order impugned in the instant petition has arisen. 3. The defendants/petitioners herein upon entering appearance before the trial court in the aforesaid subsequent suit, filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein and during its pendency filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation, in that, in the suit, the plaintiff/ respondent herein has thrown challenge to the relinquishment deed executed by her in the year 1981 and that, as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected. 4. The trial court, upon considering the said application, after inviting objections from the plaintiff/respondent herein in terms of the impugned order, dismissed the application. 5. Aggrieved of the impugned order, the petitioners herein have maintained the instant petition primarily on the ground that the trial court did not consider the case set up by the defendants/petitioners herein in its right perspective and that the trial court passed the impugned order which is patently perverse and against the settled law inasmuch as the trial court did not consider the legal position in the matter. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Insofar as the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned, law is settled and no more res-integra that the said provision is mandatory in nature and a plaint can be rejected at any stage of the proceedings on the following grounds: - 3 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 plait is written 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 sub-rule (2) of Rule 9; g) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with sub-rule (3) of Rule 9-A: It is pertinent to mention here that power of rejection of a plaint can be exercised by a Court suo-motto as well. It is also settled law that while exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has only to take cognizance of the plaint along with the material annexed thereto. 7. Reverting back to the case in hand, admittedly, the defendants/ petitioners herein sought the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law, being hit by limitation. 8. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff/respondent herein has specifically pleaded at Para 3(a) that the relinquishment deed under challenge has been executed by committing fraud and at (b) that the plaintiff/respondent is having no knowledge about the said relinquishment deed as and when it has been executed and that at the time of executing of the said relinquishment deed the plaintiff was not having any title or interest in the property with respect to which the relinquishment deed has been executed. A combined reading of the aforesaid pleas of the plaintiff/respondent herein manifestly suggest that the plaintiff/respondent has pleaded no knowledge about the execution of relinquishment deed or else its attestation and in order to substantiate 4 the said plea has qualified while pleading that even otherwise also she, the plaintiff/respondent herein, had no title or interest in the property covered in the relinquishment deed, at the time of its execution. 9. Perusal of the impugned order would tend to show that the trial court has not been oblivious to the aforesaid case set up by the plaintiff/ respondent herein in the plaint as also the law occupying the field and has thus rightly held that the plaint cannot be rejected on the grounds of limitation at this stage merely on the assertion/plea of limitation the defendants/petitioners herein that since the relinquishment deed in question has been executed in the year 1981 and also having been registered by the competent authority as such, cannot be called in question at this belated stage. As otherwise also it appears from the case set up by the plaintiff respondent herein in the suit the plea of limitation is interwoven and connected with the merits of the case, thus necessitating the said plea of limitation to be decided along with other issues thus, rendering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the defendants/petitioners herein inapplicable to the case. 10. The trial court under these circumstances cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to have committed any illegality, perversity, or irregularity while passing the impugned order. 11. The instant petition thus, is found to be without any merit and is accordingly, dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 25.02.2025 Ishaq Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether approved for reporting ? Yes