2026:HHC:14265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.R No.129 of 2025 Decided on : 29.04.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Tilak Raj ...Petitioner Versus Lehri Ram and others ...Respondents __________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vidhushi Sharma, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, who is the defendant before the learned trial Court, is aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., whereby an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) for rejection of plaint by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents, who are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court bearing CMA No.140/2023 in Civil Suit No.138 of 2023, titled, Lehri Ram and others vs. Tilak Raj, came to be rejected. The parties in the present petition are referred as plaintiffs and defendant, as are in the trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.29,50,000/- along with interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 19.01.2015 along with costs, on the plea that the defendant had executed the sale deed in their favour in respect of the land comprised in Khata No.7, Khatauni No.14, Khasra plots 11 land measuring 05-22-48HM to the extent of 23424/52248 share, i.e. land measuring 02-34-24HM(61 Kanals) situated in Mohal Nana Parla, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year 2012-13 on 02.02.2015. At the time of execution of the agreement and thereafter at the time of registration of the sale deed on 02.02.2015, it was not disclosed that the civil litigation pertaining to the suit land was pending before the Civil Court. However, in the sale deed 3 executed, it was clearly mentioned that if the possession of the plaintiffs or part of the land, is ousted, the defendant and his heirs will be responsible. 3. The ownership of the defendant in respect of the suit land and subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs was declared null and void by the Civil Courts and this Court had confirmed the orders of the Courts below vide order dated 26.07.2019 and the review petition was dismissed on 27.08.2021. 4. It has further been averred in the plaint that the defendant knowingly and intentionally sold his land of defective title to the plaintiffs and thus received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as sale consideration. The plaintiffs had spent Rs.4,50,000/- on the registration of the sale deed, which includes stamp duty, registration fee and other miscellaneous expenses and thus have suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.29,50,000/- and filed a suit for recovery of the amount from the defendant. 5. The plaintiffs have also pleaded in the plaint that 4 despite making requests to the defendant to return the whole amount of sale consideration, he started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and did not return the amount to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also served the defendant with a legal notice dated 20.11.2021, which was replied to by him on 06.12.2021, wherein he refused to make the payment to the plaintiffs. 6. It is further pleaded that the cause of action arose to the plaintiffs against the defendant firstly on 27.08.2021, when the review petition filed by them was dismissed by this Court and finally a week prior to the institution of the present suit. 7. The learned trial Court issued notice in the Civil Suit and the defendant on receipt of the notice in the Suit, instituted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint, averring that the plaintiffs were the respondents before this Court during the Regular Second Appeal and they have unnecessarily harassed the defendant by filing the present suit 5 as no cause of action has arisen in their favour. It was further pleaded that the suit is not maintainable, keeping in view of law of limitation, since it has been instituted after 8 years from the execution of the sale deed and thus, prayed that suit be rejected. 8. The plaintiffs filed reply to the application and specifically averred in para 4 that at the time of execution of the sale deed, it was mentioned that if the possession of the plaintiffs on the land or part thereof is ousted, the defendant and his heirs will be responsible. The plaintiffs were not told by the defendant at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed that the litigation is pending. The plaintiffs were arrayed as respondents before this Court later on and thus they had got actionable cause of action to sue the defendant. 9. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments, dismissed the application filed by the defendant for rejection of plaint considering that the cause of action is a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiffs to prove in 6 order to entitle them to the reliefs claimed in the suit. It is well settled that it is only the averments made in the plaint, which are required to be seen for the purpose of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiffs have averred in the suit that the cause of action had accrued to them on 27.08.2021 when their review petition was dismissed and one week prior to the institution of the present suit. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation and hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or their locus standi, cannot be decided at this stage on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. These points need to be decided along with other issues between the parties, which can be decided only after evidence is adduced by the parties. The case is still at a preliminary stage and the Court is of the view that the plaintiffs have clearly mentioned in plaint, as to when the cause of action accrued to them, and thus, rejected the application filed by the defendant. 10. The defendant feeling aggrieved by the said order 7 of rejection on his application, has laid challenge to the same before this Court on the grounds that the learned trial Court has erred while rejecting the application. It has been averred that once the plaintiffs themselves have admitted about the ongoing litigation of the property and the sale deed executed in their favour has been declared null and void by the Civil Courts and affirmed by this Court, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit for recovery after the period of limitation. 11. Learned counsel for the defendant vehemently argued that once the plaintiffs have admitted in reply to the application that they were aware about the pendency of the litigation concerning the title of the property, the suit is hopelessly time barred and the learned trial Court has committed a mistake while rejecting the application. 12. I have heard Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Ms. Vidhushi Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the record 8 carefully. 13. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant raised plea that once the plaintiffs have admitted about the knowledge of the litigation pending before this Court, the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. No doubt, while filing reply to the application, the plaintiffs have admitted that they were fully aware about the pendency of the litigation concerning the title of the property, but they were impleaded before this Court in the Regular Second Appeal. The plaintiffs have specifically averred that the factum of litigation was not disclosed to them at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. Further, when the sale deed was executed, it was clearly mentioned that, in case, the possession of the plaintiffs on the land or part thereof is ousted, the defendant and his heirs will be responsible. Thus, it cannot be construed at this stage that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have specifically mentioned in the reply that they were arrayed as respondents before this 9 Court, meaning thereby, they were unaware about the proceedings instituted qua the suit land by other persons and the suit filed by them was decreed. 14. The plaintiffs have categorically mentioned in the Civil Suit that when the defendant had not refunded the amount received by him, a legal notice dated 20.11.2021 was served upon him, which was replied to by him on 06.12.2021. Not only this, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in para 9 of the plaint that the cause of action arose in their favour on 27.08.2021, when the review petition was dismissed by this Court and finally a week prior to the institution of the present suit. If the period is counted from the said date of dismissal of the review petition i.e. on 27.08.2021, it cannot be said that the suit instituted by them is time-barred. 15. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant had cited the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No._____ of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No.16809/2025), titled, Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole & Ors. vs. 10 Rohit Enterprises & Ors. And Civil Appeal No._____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.13459 of 2024), titled, Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., and contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the circumstances when the application for rejection of plaint can be allowed. 16. If the judgment passed in Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole’s case (supra) is read, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and unless the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non- suiting a plaintiff. In this case, the High Court had rejected the plaint and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had returned the findings that the High Court had clearly erred in jumping to the conclusion that there was a delay of 10 years on the part of plaintiffs in assailing the sale deed executed in the year 2013 and thus set aside the said order. In the present case, once the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they were unaware 11 about the litigation at the time of execution of the sale deed in their favour and further they were impleaded only before this Court and after dismissal of the review petition, they have instituted the suit for recovery of the amount of the sale consideration paid by them to the defendant, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation at this stage. 17. So far as the second judgment i.e. Nikhila Divyang Mehta’s case (supra), which has been relied upon, is concerned, in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had noticed that the plaintiffs had stated that they had acquired the knowledge of the Will in the first week of November 2014 and the suit was instituted on 21.11.2017 and as such the trial Court had held that the suit was barred by limitation and the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application for rejection of the plaint could not have been interfered by the High Court. However, in the present case, as already noticed above, the plaintiffs were not aware about the setting aside of the sale deed by the trial Court and they came to know about the said 12 fact only when they had filed the application before this Court for impleading them as parties respondents in the appeal. Thereafter, the review petition was filed which was dismissed on 27.08.2021 and immediately thereafter, they have filed the civil suit for recovery of the amount from the defendant. Further as noticed above, once in the sale deed, it was specifically mentioned that in case, the possession of the plaintiffs on the land or part thereof, is ousted, the defendant and his heirs will be responsible, it cannot be said that the civil suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court after considering all the facts mentioned in the plaint had come to the conclusion that the suit cannot be said to be time barred at this stage. 18. It is now settled by catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is only the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith, to be seen for the purpose of deciding the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is also settled law that the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and thus once the plaintiffs have 13 specifically stated that the cause of action accrued to them on 27.08.2021, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation at this stage and the decision qua the cause of action and on other issues are taken only after the evidence is adduced. 19. The learned trial Court has meticulously dealt with the issue after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same does not require any interference while exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 20. The issue, with respect to the limitation, is required to be examined on evidence and cannot be summarily decided, more particularly, when the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in the plaint that the cause of action has accrued to them on 27.08.2021. 21. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is however, made clear that the findings returned by the trial Court and 14 affirmed by this Court are only for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any findings given by this Court while upholding the order and dismissed the Revision Petition. There shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of. 29 th A pril, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge