1 2026:CGHC:2557 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 210 of 2025 1 - Satish Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Gajanand Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o Near Vardhman Dharamshala, In Front Of Vardhman Kirana Shop, Gowlipara, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Seema Gidodiya W/o Adarsh Gidodiya Aged About 38 Years R/o Mukund Jewellers, Sarafa Market, Main Road, Dhule, Tehsil And District Dhule, Maharashtra 2 - Smt. Sheetal Choudhary W/o Ashish Choudhary Aged About 36 Years R/o Vaman Nagar Khamgaon Tehsil Shegaon District Akola, Maharashtra 3 - Smt. Kiran Agrawal W/o Narsingh Agrawal Aged About 68 Years R/o Gowlipara, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2) 4 - Prahlad Agrawal S/o Late Narsingh Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Gowlipara, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 3) 5 - Smt. Sahnaz Bano W/o Zabbar Dagli Aged About 48 Years R/o C/50, Sector A, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 4) ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 6 - Mohammed Saleem Bhai Nirvaan S/o Mohammed Ramzan Nirvaan Aged About 49 Years R/o Ganjpara, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 5) 7 - Sudarshan Kumar Gupta S/o Vishwanath Prasad Gupta Aged About 47 Years R/o Somni, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 6) 8 - Mohammed Mahtab Malik S/o Mohammed Shami Ahmed Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tedesara, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 7) 9 - Smt. Rabia Kaushar W/o Mohammed Saleem Nirvan Aged About 44 Years R/o Ganjpara, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhatitsgarh (Defendant No. 8) 10 - Smt. Anju Gupta W/o Sudarshan Kumar Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o Somni, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 9) 11 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 10) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate For State For Respondent No.5 For Respondent(s) : : : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Ms. Prachi Diwan, Advocate Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil 3 Procedure has been preferred by the applicant/defendant No.01 challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the District Judge (FTC) Rajnandgaon (C. G.) in Civil Suit No.01-A/20, whereby the application filed by the present applicant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief :- The plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 and 2) instituted a civil suit seeking declarations of joint ownership and possession in respect of the suit land described in Schedule A, cancellation of the sale deed dated 02.07.2010 executed on the basis of a power of attorney, and consequential declarations rendering subsequent sale deeds void, along with costs; upon service of summons, the revisioner entered appearance and filed a written statement and documents, and thereafter, when the matter was posted for evidence, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC contending that the suit is barred by limitation and not maintainable. The dispute traces its origin to land purchased by Late Gajanand Agrawal in the name of his elder son Late Narsingh Agrawal, upon which an industrial unit was established; following financial distress and recovery proceedings initiated by the bank before the DRT, the revisioner and other family members, with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, executed powers of attorney to sell adjoining commercial land to settle dues under an OTS scheme, pursuant to which the 4 land at Tedesara was sold on 02.07.2010 and the proceeds deposited before the DRT, resulting in issuance of NOC. The powers of attorney were subsequently cancelled on 05.10.2013 without assigning reasons. After a lapse of about ten years from the impugned sale, the plaintiffs filed the present suit on 08.07.2020 seeking cancellation of the 2010 sale deed, whereupon the revisioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC asserting that the challenge is ex facie time-barred was rejected by the trial court, giving rise to the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant No. 1 submits that the applicant had rightly filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC before the Trial Court contending that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation, as from the plaint averments themselves it is evident that the registered sale deed was executed on 02.07.2010, possession was delivered to the purchaser thereafter, and the plaintiffs, being close family members of respondents No. 3 and 4, had full knowledge of the transaction, including the sale effected to discharge the bank liability in DRT proceedings; despite such knowledge, no objection was raised for nearly ten years and the suit seeking declaration, cancellation of the sale deed and possession was instituted only on 08.07.2020, whereas the limitation prescribed for such reliefs is three years; it is further submitted that the cancellation of the power of attorney by respondents No. 3 and 4 without any allegation of fraud or mistake clearly acknowledges the transaction and negates the 5 plea of lack of knowledge, and the assertion of a later cause of action in paragraph 17 of the plaint is nothing but a device of clever drafting to overcome limitation; therefore, the learned Trial Court has erred in treating the issue as a mixed question of fact and law and in ignoring the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.S. Ramaswami vs. V.K. Senthil, rendering the impugned order illegal and contrary to law and liable to be quashed with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. 4. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits, in opposition, that the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court, as the issue of limitation in the present case involves disputed questions of fact and law which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold without recording evidence; it is contended that the respondents had no knowledge of the execution of the sale deed at the relevant time and the alleged transaction was carried out without their consent and behind their back, and the cause of action for filing the suit first arose only on 02.12.2019 when the respondents came to know about the execution of the sale deed and subsequently obtained its certified copy, whereafter the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation; it is further submitted that mere family relationship or subsequent events cannot be presumed to confer prior knowledge of the impugned transaction, particularly when the respondents were shown as minors in the power of 6 attorney and were excluded from the transaction, and therefore the question as to when the respondents acquired knowledge of the sale deed is a matter requiring trial; learned counsel thus submits that the plaint does not ex-facie disclose any bar of limitation, the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC are not attracted, and the impugned order calls for no interference, warranting dismissal of the revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 has supported and adopted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant/defendant No. 1 and has contended that the suit, on the face of the plaint averments, is hopelessly barred by limitation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost care. 7. It is a settled position of law that where the issue of limitation depends upon adjudication of facts and requires evidence, the same becomes a mixed question of law and fact. In such circumstances, the plaint cannot be rejected outright under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, nor can the issue be finally decided without affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court, instead of conclusively holding the suit to be within limitation, ought to have framed a preliminary issue on the question of limitation and decided the same after recording evidence of the parties. 7 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the learned Trial Court is directed to frame a preliminary issue on the question of limitation, give appropriate opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead their evidence, and thereafter decide the said issue in accordance with law. If, after recording evidence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is within limitation, it shall proceed to adjudicate the suit on merits. If it is found that the suit is barred by limitation, appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. Limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, the same can only be adjudicated during the course of trial. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Civil Revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena