1 CGHC010414212025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 251 of 2025 Madanpur South Coal Company Limited Raipur Having Its Registered Office At Vanijya Bhawan, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chairman Gopal Krishna Chhangani, S/o Late Shri Krishna Chhangani, Aged About 72 Years, R/o 198, Geetanjali Nagar, Sector- I, Shankar Nagar Raipur (C.G.) (Impleaded Through Director And His Attorney By Plaintiff And Complete Address Has Not Been Mentioned) (Defendant No.2) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Dukhmati D/o Dhanwa Aged About 52 Years Caste Rawat, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Jashpur, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). (Plaintiff) 2 - Shambhu S/o Anjora Aged About 40 Years By Caste Rawat, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Jashpur, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Defendant No.1) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, Collectorate Office Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.). (Defendant No.3) … Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/07/2026 2 1. The instant Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.06.2025, passed in Civil Suit No.29A/2021, by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge to the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sarangarh, whereby application moved by the applicant/defendant No. 2 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. 2. The facts in brief are that the non-applicant No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008, declaration of title and possession pertaining to land bearing No. Survey No.1/586/10, admeasuring 0.833 hectare, inter alia, on the ground that land is originally belongs to Anjora, Grandfather of the plaintiff who was having two sons, Dhanwa and Shambhu, and non- applicant No.2/defendant No.1 namely Shambhu sold the the land without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008 in favour of applicant/defendant No. 2. 3. The plaintiff pleaded that during the course of acquisition of lands for Saradih Barrage Dam, she did not find her name in the revenue records. Upon inquiry, she came to know that the aforesaid land has been recorded in the name of defendant No. 2/applicant. She visited the office of the Sub-Registrar and came to know that on 04.04.2008 a sale deed had been executed by defendant No. 1, thereafter, she filed the civil suit. 4. The applicant/defendant No. 2 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff has challenged the registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008 by filing the civil suit in the on 07.08.2021 and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The application moved by defendant No. 2 was opposed by the plaintiff, and the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 18.06.2025, rejected the said application. 3 5. Mr. Payashi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and, therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Payashi and submit that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and, on that ground alone, the plaint cannot be rejected. 7. Heard. 8. A perusal of the plaint would show that though the sale deed was executed on 04.04.2008, the plaintiff, upon inquiry, came to know about its execution on 15.01.2021 and thereafter filed the suit in the 07.08.2021. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently, in the matter of P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Another, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 509, held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as time-barred when the issue of limitation involves a mixed question of law and fact, such issue cannot be decided at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It has further been held that the High Court had proceeded to reject the suit as being barred by limitation without examining whether the pleadings regarding the date of knowledge were acceptable or not. In that case, the document was executed in the year 1988, the alleged effect thereof was discovered by the plaintiff in the year 2011, and thereafter the suit was filed in the year 2014. A plea was taken by the defendant that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. 10.In the present case also, the sale deed was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff came to know about this fact in the year 2021 and immediately thereafter filed the suit in the same year. 4 11.At this stage, it cannot be presumed that the pleadings made by the plaintiff with regard to the date of knowledge are false or improbable, therefore, the issue relating to limitation could not have been decided at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; thus, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by defendant No. 2/applicant. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim