52-cra-477-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 477 OF 2023 Khanderao Yashwant Kadam … Applicant vs. Smt. Phulabai Raghunath Barve and Ors … Respondents Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde a/w. Ms. Aakanksha s. Yadav i/b. Ergo Juris for Applicant. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 4th DECEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This civil revision application is filed by the original defendant no. 16, to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the suit filed in the year 2016, challenges the sale deed of 1991. Hence, the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation on the plain reading of the plaint and the prayers. The plaintiffs were aware about the sale deed of 1991. Hence, the cause of action pleaded in the suit is only with an intention to bring the suit within imitation. The trial court therefore, ought to have rejected the plaint as barred by limitation. 3. I have perused the papers of the application and the Page no. 1 of 3 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2025.12.19 19:46:08 +0530 52-cra-477-2023.doc pleadings in the plaint. The suit is filed for a substantial relief of partition and separate possession. Based on the prayers seeking partition and separate possession, the plaintiffs have prayed for a relief that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.16 is illegal. The cause of action is pleaded in paragraph no. 13 of the plaint for seeking partition and separate possession, and the consequential relief regarding the challenge to the sale deed on the ground that defendant nos. 1 to 16 had no right to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property described in the plaint paragraph no. 1b. 4. The plaintiffs have made substantive averments to support their cause of action with reference to the steps taken for deleting the names of the plaintiffs by an application filed by defendant no.6. Hence, the plaintiffs have prayed for partition and separate possession and also challenged the sale deed. Based on the pleadings for seeking partition and separate possession, the trial court held that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation as it would warrant a trial. The plaintiffs’ cause of action, as pleaded in paragraph no. 13, about the date of knowledge of the sale deed, is considered by the trial court to hold that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts in the present case. 5. Considering that the plaintiffs have prayed for partition and Page no. 2 of 3 52-cra-477-2023.doc separate possession, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground that the prayers would be barred by limitation, only by referring to one of the prayers challenging the sale deed. Considering the pleadings, the issue of limitation would depend upon the bundle of facts pleaded in the plaint. Hence, the suit would warrant a trial, and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. The trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 6. The legal principles governing the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC are no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali1 held that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 7. Considering the pleadings in the plaint and the reasons recorded in the impugned order by the trial court, there is no jurisdictional or any other manifest error in the impugned order warranting interference in the impugned order under Section 115 of the CPC. 8. The civil revision application is dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366 Page no. 3 of 3