IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 170 CR-5321-2026 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Devender Rathi and another ....Petitioners Versus Umed Singh Rathi and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ---- Present: Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside order dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 (Umed Singh Rathi), who is the father and father-in-law of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, respectively, filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, averring that the suit property is owned by the plaintiff and that the petitioners, in collusion with the Municipal Corporation, Rohtak, had wrongly and illegally transferred the suit property vide release deed dated 16.03.2004, and with a further prayer for handing over vacant possession of the said property. 3. Upon notice of the suit, the petitioners had filed written statement VARINDER PRASHAD 2026.07.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC CR-5321-2026 -: 2 :- opposing the same as well as an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the plaint. 4. The said application for rejection of plaint, after due contest, was dismissed by the trial Court. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, order dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) has been assailed by way of the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit is hopelessly time barred as challenge has been made to a registered document dated 16.03.2004. It is further submitted that the cause of action, if any, had accrued to the plaintiff/respondent on the execution of the aforesaid document, which itself is in public domain. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the plaintiff-respondent is neither the owner of the suit property nor in possession, and also the registered address given in the plaint, is incorrect. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the documents appended with the present petition and considered the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, this Court does not find merit in the same. 9. It is trite law that for adjudication on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only avernments made in the plaint are to be taken into consideration. 10. The plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and the factual aspect can only be established on record by leading cogent evidence. 11. In the present case, the date of knowledge of the fraud having been committed upon the plaintiff as well as cause of action having accrued VARINDER PRASHAD 2026.07.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC CR-5321-2026 -: 3 :- on that basis, have been detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, which read as under: “4. That now the plaintiff has came to know from the information received under RTI Act vide dated 29.3.2016 from MC Rohtak that the defendant no.3 has transferred the said property in the name of defendant no.2 at the instance of defendant no.1 inclusion with each other as the defendant no.1 prepared some released, deed regarding the property in question and registered the same with the office of joint Sub-Registrar, Rohtak vide registered document bearing no.7841, dated 16.3.2004, the defendant no.1 registered the said release deed in favour of the defendant no.2 without any proof of ownership without any right, title or authority. The defendant no.2 succeed to get transfer of ownership of the suit property in her favour in- collusion with the remaining defendants, in the record of MC Rohtak as mentioned above. The plaintiff came to know about this fraud played by the defendants vide information dated 29.3.2016 received under RTI Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant no.3 transfer the record of ownership in favour of defendant no.2 after the survey of 1997-98 without informing and asking from the plaintiff. Thus the act of the defendants is illegal unwarranted and against the law of the land and the said transfer is not binding upon the plaintiff. 5. That the plaintiff approached the defendants many a times to cancel the said transfer and to make appropriate reverse correction in the record of ownership in the name of plaintiff instead of defendant no.2 but the defendants are in collusion with each other and they refused to accept the request of the plaintiff lastly on 26.3.2018 hence this present Civil suit.” 12. A perusal of the above would show that the categoric stand of plaintiff-respondent is that he became aware of the registered document dated 16.03.2004 on receipt of information under the Right to Information Act, from VARINDER PRASHAD 2026.07.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC CR-5321-2026 -: 4 :- Municipal Corporation, Rohtak, vide communication dated 29.03.2016. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff had approached the defendants many times to cancel the said transfer and for reversal of the record of ownership, which has been refused last on 26.03.2018. On a complete reading of the plaint, it is evident that the cause of action is alleged to have first arisen on 29.03.2016 and thereafter on 26.03.2018. The suit was instituted on 26.03.2018, i.e. within a period of three years from the date of the alleged accrual of the cause of action on 29.03.2016. 13. Moreover, the second limb of the argument with regard to the plaintiff-respondent not being the owner of the property, is based on the defence taken in the written statement only on the basis of the registered document dated 16.03.2004, which is the document that is alleged to be a result of fraud and collusion with the registering authorities and is under challenge in the present suit. In that regard, the observations recorded by the trial Court, which are extracted hereunder, would be relevant as no contrary argument has been raised before this Court. “However, this argument is not maintainable as in this authority itself, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the limitation period for suit involving fraud under Article 59 commences upon discovery of the fraud. As per the plaint, the plaintiff got to know about the alleged fraud on 29.03.2016 through RTI and therefore, prima-facie the suit is within limitation at this stage as there is nothing on the file to show that plaintiff had notice of this registered release deed before any other date. Further, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit property and it is the defendants who had been residing in the suit property from last several years (more than 03 decades) VARINDER PRASHAD 2026.07.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC CR-5321-2026 -: 5 :- and therefore, the plaintiff has no ownership, title or possession as no cause of action to file this case. However, this argument is also not maintainable as it is a matter of evidence which cannot be decided only going through the contents of the application.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the impugned order is illegal or perverse either on the facts of the case or law. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed. (VIKAS SURI) July 21, 2026 JUDGE Varinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VARINDER PRASHAD 2026.07.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC