1 CGHC010161642026 2026:CGHC:31761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 117 of 2026 1 - Smt. Usha Saraf W/o Kishore Saraf Aged About 60 Years R/o -Sadar Road Baloda- Bazar Tehsil And District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. -Presently R/o- Usha Kitchen Near Mowa, Police Station, Vidhan Sabha Road Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant/defendant No.1 versus 1 - Rajesh S/o Late Mulshankar Kesharwani Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. -13, Infront Of Kedia Complex Nehru Chowk Baloda Bazar Tehsil And District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 2 - Sanjay S/o Late Mulshankar Kesharwani Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. -13, Infront Of Kedia Complex Nehru Chowk Baloda Bazar Tehsil And District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 3 - Mukesh S/o Late Mulshankar Keshrwani Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. -13, Infront Of Kedia Complex Nehru Chowk Baloda Bazar Tehsil And District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 4 - Kasturi Wd/o -Late Mulshankar Kesharwani Aged About 75 Years R/o Ward No. -13, Infront Of Kedia Complex Nehru Chowk Baloda Bazar Tehsil And District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 5 - Anita D/o Late Mulshankar Kesharwani W/o Gyanendra Gupta Aged Bout 55 Years R/o- Green City Colony Sahdol- District -Sahdol M.P. 6 - Abha D/o Late Mulshankar Kesharwani W/o Ashok Kumar Keshrwani Aged About 50 Years R/o- Maanik Fancy Store Gandhi Chowk Sidhi District Sidhi M.P. 7 - Babita D/o Late Mulshankar Kesharwani W/o Vinay Kesharwani Aged About 46 Years, R/o- Station Road Bilha, Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur C.G. 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. ---- Respondents For Applicant/Defendant No.1 : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant No.8/State : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.07.2026 -2- 1. Heard. 2. The applicant/defendant No.1 has challenged the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Division Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.76-A/2025 whereby, application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was rejected. 3. The facts, in brief, are that non-applicant Nos.1 to 7/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 26.03.2003, executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No. 1 is null and void, along with the consequential relief of injunction. 4. Defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the lease deed granted in favour of Mulshankar Kesharwani, the father of the plaintiffs was not renewed by the plaintiffs and they were under impression that the lease was renewed. They filed the civil suit claiming renewal of the lease. Further, a ground was taken that the plaintiffs have no right over the suit property. The plea of non- joinder of parties was also taken, and that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. In paragraph 6, a ground was also taken that, according to the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable. The application was replied to by the plaintiffs, wherein they denied the averments made therein. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 28.02.2026, rejected the application. 5. Ms. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 would contend that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by law and limitation and was also not maintainable on account of non-joinder of parties. She would further contend that the learned Trial Court failed to 3 consider the grounds raised by the applicant herein and rejected the application without assigning sufficient reasons. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions. She would contend that the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs discloses a cause of action and on the ground of non-joinder of parties, the plaint cannot be rejected. It is contended that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and, on that ground also, the civil suit cannot be dismissed. 7. With regard to the bar contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, Ms. Shrivastava would contend that there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to seek the relief of possession, as they have challenged the validity of the sale deed dated 26.03.2003. She would further contend that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they are still in possession of the suit property; therefore, only the relief of declaration has been sought. She would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. A perusal of the plaint would show that the plaintiffs have challenged the sale deed dated 26.03.2003 executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1. They have specifically pleaded that their father remained in possession of the property and, thereafter, they came into possession of the same. 10.With regard to the non-renewal of the lease deed, this issue can be decided after recording evidence of parties. Therefore, this ground is also not available in favour of the applicant/defendant No.1. -4- 11.It is a well-settled principle of law that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and can be decided only after recording the evidence of the parties. In the matter of P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan, 2025 INSC 598, the Supreme Court reiterated that where the determination of limitation depends upon disputed questions of fact, particularly the date of knowledge, such an issue cannot be decided at the threshold while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and must be adjudicated after the parties have led evidence. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below : 12.1. However, we are of the considered view that the issue as to whether the appellant had prior notice or reason to be aware of the transaction at an earlier point of time, or whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge is credible, are matters that necessarily require appreciation of evidence. At this preliminary stage, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true. Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation without permitting the parties to lead evidence, is legally unsustainable. 12.2. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the following decisions of this Court, which have consistently held that when the question of limitation involves disputed facts or hinges on the date of knowledge, such issues cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC: (i) Daliben Valjibhai & Others v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 4105 “10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants made an application for correcting the revenue records only in the year 2017 and on the said application the Deputy Collector issued notice to the plaintiffs in March 2017 and that was the time when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deed. It is under these circumstances that the suit was instituted in the year 2017. While the High Court came to the correct conclusion that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in cases where the document is registered, the knowledge must be presumed from the date of registration. 5 12. Further, in Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar where again a suit for cancellation of sale deed was opposed through an application under Order 7 Rule 11, on ground of limitation, this Court specifically held that limitation in all such cases will arise from date of knowledge. The relevant portion is as follows: “15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18-10-1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4105 registered. However, the specific case of the appellant-plaintiffs is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers, original Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (½) portion of the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realised that the original Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That view commends to us. … 19. In the present case, we find that the appellant-plaintiffs have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by -6- original Defendants 1 and 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original Defendants 1 and 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestral property of the appellants. We affirm the view taken by the trial court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.” (emphasis supplied) 13. In view of the above, there was no justification for the High Court in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments itself. The High Court was also not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself. In this view of the matter the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable.” 12.As the plaintiffs have categorically pleaded that they are in possession of the suit property and have further sought the relief of permanent injunction, the bar contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act would not, in my opinion attract. 13.Having considered the facts discussed hereinabove, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-referred decision, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha