1 CGHC010414262025 2026:CGHC:32550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 257 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 In Plaint) (Defendant No. 2) … Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Dhansay S/o Madan, Aged About 60 Years Caste Marar, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Jashpur, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2 - Firtin Bai Wd/o Manohar, Aged About 65 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Jashpur, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 3 - Sadhram S/o Manohar Aged About 50 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Jashpur, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, Collectorate Office, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Defendant No. 3) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For State/Non-applicant No.4 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 24/07/2026 1. The instant Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.06.2025, passed in Civil Suit No.49A/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-applicants No.1 & 2/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed, declaration of title and possession pertaining to land bearing No. Survey No. 1/190 admeasuring 0.097 Hectare, Survey No. 1/230/1 admeasuring 0.093 Hectare, Survey No. 1/354/1 admeasuring 0.470 Hectare, Survey No. 1/354/3 admeasuring 0.595 Hectare, Survey No. 1/139/1admeasuring 0.081 Hectare, Survey No. 1/370/1 admeasuring 0.105 Hecatre and Survey No. 1/371/5 admeasuring 0.112 Hectare agricultural land, inter alia, on the ground that the lands described above were initially recorded in the name of the father of plaintiff No. 1, husband of plaintiff No. 2. The lands were sold by defendant No. 1 through a registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008 in favour of defendant No. 2, who is the applicant herein. The plaintiffs pleaded that during the course of acquisition of lands for Saradih Barrage Dam, they did not find their names in the revenue records. Upon inquiry, they came to know that the lands have been recorded in the name of defendant No. 2/applicant. They 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, they filed the civil suit. 3. Defendant No. 2 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs have challenged the registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008 by filing the civil suit in the year 2022 and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. The application moved by defendant No. 2 was opposed by 3 the plaintiffs, and the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 18.06.2025, rejected the said application. 4. Mr. Payashi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and, therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 5. 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. 6. Heard. 7. A perusal of the plaint would show that though the sale deed was executed on 04.04.2008, the plaintiffs, upon inquiry, came to know about its execution on 17.11.2021 and thereafter filed the suit in the year 2022. 8. 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. 9. In the present case also, the sale deed was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs came to know about this 4 fact in the year 2021 and immediately thereafter filed the suit in the year 2022. 10.At this stage, it cannot be presumed that the pleadings made by the plaintiffs 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