Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dina Nath Sharma vs Banti Devi on 29 July, 2026
( 2026:HHC:32739)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CR No. 51 of 2026
Decided on: 29.07.2026
.
Dina Nath Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
Banti Devi ...Respondent.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: rt Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
The instant petition arises out of the order, dated
13.03.2026, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. whereby application filed by
defendant/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection
of the plaint was dismissed.
2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that
the respondent/plaintiff Banti Devi, filed a suit for declaration to
the effect that she is co-owner in joint possession of the land
measuring 08.15 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 281,
khata/khatauni No. 97/117, situated in Village Ladhyani, Post
Office Lehri Sarail, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP.
and further, that she is having 1/2 share out of the suit land
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:37 :::CIS
2 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
which has been inherited by her from her husband late Sh.
Ganpat, son of Sh. Sadhu in lieu of maintenance, being his
.
legally wedded wife, and the revenue entries existing in the
name of defendant may be declared as null and void.
3. As per the case as set up by the plaintiff, the
plaintiff/respondent is blind by birth. Therefore, she executed a
of
power of attorney in favour of Sh. Kamal Dev for the filing of
the present suit. As per the averments as alleged in the plaint,
rt
the plaintiff Banti and defendant Dina Nath are the real brother
and sister. That plaintiff is joint owner in possession over the
land measuring 08.15 bighas comprised in Khasra No 281,
Khata/Khatauni No. 97/117 situated in Village Ladhyani, Post
Office Lehri Sarail, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP.,
i.e. the suit land along with the defendant and her three
brothers, namely, Nand Lal, late Sh. Inder Raj, and Prakash
Chand. That the plaintiff got married to late Sh. Ganpat. The
husband of the plaintiff had given half share of the suit land in
lieu of the maintenance during his lifetime and she used to
reside at Village Ladhyani, i.e., in the house of her in-laws.
After the death of the husband of the plaintiff, she became the
sole owner of the suit land qua her share. That taking
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:37 :::CIS
3 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
advantage of the blindness of the plaintiff, and with a mala fide
intention, the defendant approached the plaintiff in the year
.
1980, pretending to be her well-wisher, and he requested the
plaintiff to allow him to reside in her house. Taking advantage
of the innocence of the plaintiff, the defendant started living in
the house of the plaintiff, but subsequently he started torturing
of
the plaintiff in all possible manners. When she was tortured,
and the life of the plaintiff became miserable, she left the
rt
company of the defendant and managed to escape from the
confinement of the defendant and went to the Police Station,
Bharari and there she registered an FIR bearing No. 102 dated
23rd September 2022 against the defendant, his wife Kusum
Lata, and his son Susheel Kumar.
4. As per the plaintiff, she raised a suspicion over
the defendant that while residing with her, he might have
procured some forged documents, and on the basis of the
suspicion, the GPA of the plaintiff visited the office of the
Patwari, and he came to know that the entire share of the
plaintiff from the suit land has been relinquished in favour of
defendant by virtue of the relinquishment deed dated 15th
February 1995 bearing registration No.112. As a matter of fact,
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:37 :::CIS
4 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
plaintiff never executed any such document, and in case the
defendant has procured any such document, the same is
.
shrouded by fraud, coercion, undue influence, and
misrepresentation by the defendant. That on the basis of the
alleged relinquishment deed, mutation No. 576 dated 27th April
1995 was attested in the absence of the plaintiff, and the
of
defendant managed to transfer the big chunk of suit land, i.e.
share of the plaintiff, in his favour in a wrongful and illegal
rt
manner.
5. On inquiry, it transpired to the plaintiff for the first
time in the month of October 2022 about the entry when she
inquired about her land through her GPA from the Patwari,
Patwar Circle Lehri Sarail. Immediately, she obtained the
revenue record and got all the copies on 18th October 2022
and later on 9th January 2023. It transpired to the plaintiff that
defendant had filed various frivolous cases, in her name with
respect to the suit land by appointing himself as her GPA.
Immediately, plaintiff revoked the said GPA on 7th October
2022 in the office of Naib Tehsildar, Bharari. The plaintiff also
withdrew the civil suits which had been filed by the defendant
in her name being her GPA. Police during the investigation of
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
5 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
the FIR bearing No. 102 dated 23rd September 2022 visited the
house of the defendant and recorded the statement of the
.
parties. The plaintiff requested the defendant on 29 th
December 2022 to return her articles which were in
possession of the defendant, and also requested to deliver the
possession of her land as well as house, but the defendant
of
flatly refused to do so.
6. Plaintiff filed suit before the trial Court and prayed
rt
a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is co-
owner in joint possession over the land measuring 08.15
bighas comprised in Khasra No 281, Khata/Khatauni No.
97/117, situated in Village Ladhyani, Post Office Lehri Sarail,
Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP. Further, by declaring
that plaintiff is having half share of suit land which has been
inherited by her from her husband late Sh. Ganpat. Decree for
declaration that the relinquishment deed dated 15 th February
1995 alleged to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of the
defendant be declared null and void and the same is the result
of fraud, coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation
having no binding rights over the right, title, and interest of the
plaintiff. Further, the mutation No. 576 dated 27 th April 1995
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
6 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
attested by the learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Bharari
in favour of the defendant be declared as illegal, wrong, null
.
and void and decree for permanent injunction was sought
against the defendant.
7. The suit came to be resisted by the defendant /
petitioner by raising preliminary objections with respect to the
of
maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, suppression of
material facts, estoppel, etc. On merits, all the averments as
rt
made in the plaint were specifically refuted and denied. It was
stated that the plaintiff had executed the relinquishment deed
in favour of the defendant out of her own free will and without
any pressure or coercion.
8. As per the averments as made in the written
statement, it was stated that the relinquishment deed stood
admitted by the plaintiff while making a statement in Civil Suit
bearing No. 89/1 of 2007 which was pending in the Court of
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, H.P. In the said Civil Suit, the plaintiff got
recorded her statement and acknowledged the execution of
the relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant. It was
stated that after the execution of the registered relinquishment
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
7 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
deed dated 15th February 1995, the plaintiff ceases to have
any right, title, or interest over the suit land and thereafter, it is
.
the defendant who has become owner in possession of the
same.
9. After filing the written statement, the defendant
filed an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11
of
CPC for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that vide
relinquishment deed dated 30th December 1994 registered on
rt
15th February 1995 and on the basis of the mutation attested
by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ghumarwin, District
Bilaspur, dated 27th April 1995, the defendant has become
owner of the suit land and the said fact was duly
acknowledged by the plaintiff while making statement in Civil
Suit No. 89/1 of 2007 titled as Banti Devi vs Sita Ram & others
on 27th April 2011.
10. In the application, it has been stated that while
appearing as PW-5, in the Civil Suit bearing No. 89/1 of 2007
in cross-examination, she has admitted that she relinquished
her share in favour of the applicant/ present petitioner. The
right, title, and interest of the plaintiff stood extinguished and
that she has got no authority to file the instant suit through the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
8 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
general power of attorney. It is also the case of the applicant/
petitioner that the date of the execution of the document is 30th
.
December 1994, which was registered on 15th February 1995,
and the date of the attestation of the said document is 27 th
April 1995, and that the suit has been instituted in the year
2023, i.e., after elapse of more than 28 years.
of
11. As per defendant/petitioner the execution of the
relinquishment deed was very much in the knowledge of the
rt
plaintiff; therefore, the suit is hopelessly time-barred and that
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has to be
allowed and the suit is liable to be rejected. Further, it is the
case of the defendant-petitioner that the plaint has been
cleverly drafted wherein it has been tried to bring the suit
within the period of limitation by mentioning false and
concocted date of cause of action, i.e., 29th December 2022 by
alleging commission of fraud, coercion, undue influence, and
misrepresentation. The defendant has prayed for allowing of
the aforesaid application.
12. The said application came to be contested by the
plaintiff by raising the plea of maintainability, cause of action,
estoppel, locus standi, etc. On merits, it has been stated that
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
9 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
the plaintiff is a blind lady by birth, and she was not aware
about the execution of the alleged relinquishment deed.
.
13. It is case of the plaintiff that she was confined by
the present petitioner for many years, and in the year 2022,
somehow she managed to escape from the clutches of the
defendant. Immediately thereafter, she lodged an FIR No. 102
of
dated 23rd September 2022 against the petitioner, his wife and
his son under the various provisions of IPC. As per plaintiff,
rt
the petitioner had taken the undue advantage of being her real
brother and cleverly got executed the relinquishment deed in
his name. To the averment as made by the petitioner that the
plaintiff had made a statement in Civil Suit bearing No. 89/1 of
2007, it was stated that she made the statement before the
Court under the influence of the defendant as she was in his
wrongful confinement. Further, she has stated that she has no
idea about the contents of the affidavit given on her behalf in
the said civil suit, being blind by birth. Therefore, the plaintiff
prayed for dismissal of the application as filed by the
defendant.
14. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court
No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. vide its impugned
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
10 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
order dated 13th March 2026, dismissed the application as
filed by the defendant.
.
15. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant has
approached this Court by filing the Revision Petition under
Section 115 of the CPC.
16. It is contended by Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma,
of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order as
passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and liable to be
rt
set aside. He submits that the learned trial Court has not
appreciated the point in controversy and has wrongly rejected
the application, whereas the petitioner has been able to make
out the case for the rejection of the plaint and suit being time-
barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
after accepting the present revision petition, the application
filed by the defendant for the rejection of the plaint deserves to
be allowed.
17. On the other hand, Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned
counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order
and submitted that while exercising the power under Section
115 of the CPC, this Court will not interfere in the well-
reasoned order as passed by the learned trial Court. He
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
11 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
submits that the scope of interference by this Court while
exercising the power under Section 115 of the CPC is very
.
narrow and limited, therefore, the revision petition deserves to
be rejected.
18 I heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the case file.
of
19. The precise case of the plaintiff before the
learned trial Court is that she is a blind lady by birth.
rt
Admittedly, both the parties are real brother and sister, and it is
case of the plaintiff that after the death of her husband late Sh.
Ganpat, she inherited the suit property.
20. The plaintiff has stated that taking undue
advantage of her blindness and old age, the defendant with a
mala fide intention approached her and requested her to allow
him to reside with her. Afterwards, the defendant started ill-
treating the plaintiff, and he used to torture her.
21. It is case of the plaintiff that being aggrieved on
account of the torture as committed by the defendant, she
managed to escape from the wrongful confinement and went
to the police station and got registered FIR No. 102 of 2022.
The plaintiff has alleged that after leaving the company of the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
12 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
defendant, she got suspicious that probably the defendant
might have obtained some documents under the thumb
.
impression of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the revenue papers were
obtained from the Patwari, Patwar Circle, Laheri Sarail, and
she came to know for the first time on 18 th October 2022, and
later on 9th January 2023, that the suit land has been
of
relinquished in favour of the defendant. Thereafter, she also
came to know that various cases were filed by the defendant
rt
on behalf of the plaintiff by appointing himself as her general
power of attorney. The general power of attorney was revoked
on 7th October 2022, and thereafter, she also withdrew the civil
suits which were frivolously filed by the defendant in the name
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged in the civil suit that after
the registration of FIR, the police visited the house of the
parties in order to record the statement of both the parties, and
when the plaintiff requested the defendant to return her articles
which were in his possession and also requested to deliver the
possession of the land and the house, the defendant flatly
refused to do so and threatened her that he will not relinquish
the share of the plaintiff at any cost. Immediately thereafter,
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
13 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
plaintiff approached the civil court by filing a suit for
declaration.
.
22. On the other hand, the defence as projected by
the defendant is that the plaintiff had executed a conveyance
deed/relinquishment deed on 30th December 1994, which was
subsequently registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
of
Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, on 15th
February 1995. Thereafter, the mutation was also attested in
rt
favour of the defendant, whereby the suit land was transferred
in the name of the defendant with the express consent of the
plaintiff.
23. In order to substantiate his case, the defendant
has relied upon the statement of the plaintiff, which she had
made in the judicial proceedings on 27th April 2011, whereby in
her cross-examination she had acknowledged and affirmed
that the transaction/relinquishment deed was executed in
favour of the defendant. Though, for the purpose of
adjudicating the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the
contents of the written statement as filed by the defendant
have not to be taken into consideration, but the same have
been reproduced only for the purpose of clarity of the facts.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
14 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
24. It is an admitted fact inter se the parties that the
plaintiff is a blind lady by birth. She has levelled allegation of
.
fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation against the
defendant. It is case of the plaintiff that defendant kept her in
the confinement, and she was able to escape her from the
confinement of the defendant with great difficulty.
of
25. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the suit as filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly
rt
time-barred as the relinquishment deed is dated 1994, which
was registered in the year 1995, however, the suit came to be
instituted in the year 2023. Therefore, on the face of record,
the suit is liable to be dismissed.
26. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. Vikrant
Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent that the limitation
has to be taken from the date of the knowledge, and the cause
of action in the present case accrued to the plaintiff when she
came to know about the execution of the relinquishment deed
and the attestation of the mutation.
27. In order to substantiate his contention, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sree Surya Developers
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
15 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
and Promoters vs. N. Sailesh Prasad & others, (2022) 5
SCC 736, decided on 09.02.2022, Forest International
.
Limited Vs. Milan Developers and Builders Private and
Limited and another, (2022) 8 SCC 633, decided on
01.04.2022 and Uma Devi & others vs. Anand Kumar &
others, (2025) 5 SCC 198, decided on 02.04.2025.
of
28. On the other hand, Mr. Vikrant Chandel has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil
rt
Appeal No. 5622 of 2025 titled as P. Kumarakurubaran v. P.
Narayanan and Others, decided on 29.04.2025, wherein it
has been specifically held that Article 59 of the Limitation Act,
1963 governs the suits seeking cancellation of an instrument
and prescribes a period of limitation of 3 years from the date
when the plaintiff first had the knowledge of the facts entitling
him to such relief. The emphasis under Article 59 is not on the
date of the transaction, but on the accrual of the cause of
action, which in cases involving allegations of fraud or
unauthorized execution of documents hinges upon the date on
which the plaintiff acquired the knowledge of such facts.
Whether the plaintiff had prior notice or reason to be aware of
the transaction at an early point of time, or whether the plea
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
16 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
regarding the date of knowledge is credible, are matters that
necessarily require appreciation of evidence. At the preliminary
.
stage, the averments as 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
of
summarily.
29. As per the Hon’ble Apex Court, when the
rt
question of limitation involves disputed facts or hinges on the
date of knowledge, such issue cannot be decided at the stage
30. In case titled as Chhotanben v. Kiritibhai
Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar (2018) 6 SCC 422, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that the plea regarding the date on
which the plaintiff gained knowledge of the essential facts is
crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by
the limitation or not. It becomes triable issue, and the suit
cannot be thrown out at the threshold.
31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P.
Kumarakurubaran‘s case (supra) has held as follows:
“8.3. The learned counsel further pointed out that the
appellant has sought the relief of declaration of title and::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
17 ( 2026:HHC:32739)permanent injunction by expressly disputing the right, title,
and possession claimed by the respondents. The plaint
contains specific allegations regarding fraudulent alienation,
subsequent encumbrance, and the absence of authority on.
the part of the appellant’s father to effect the transfer of the
suit property. These are serious and contested issues that
necessitate a detailed adjudication based on oral and
documentary evidence. At the threshold stage, it is
impermissible for the Court to assess the truth or falsity ofthese averments or to summarily reject the suit on the
ground of limitation. Furthermore, the Additional District
Judge, in declining the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC committed no jurisdictional error, as the plaint disclosedof
triable issues requiring full-fledged trial. However, the High
Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has erroneously
interfered with the order of the trial Court and proceeded to
reject the suit at the preliminary stage.
rt
9.3. The learned counsel also submitted that a bare perusal
of the averments in the plaint reveals that the suit is barred
by limitation. In this regard, reliance was placed on thedecisions of this Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali4 and Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram
Prasanna Singh(Dead) by LRs 5 wherein, it was held that
when the foundational facts, as pleaded, squarely attract the
bar of (2020) 7 SCC 366 (2020) 16 SCC 601 limitation, notrial is warranted and the suit is liable to be dismissed at the
threshold. That apart, the learned counsel referred to the
decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and
Others v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje PratapsinhMaharaj Bhonsle and Another6, wherein, it was clearly held
that the spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC isonly for the courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex-
facie appears to be a clear abuse of process.
11. It is well-settled that Article 59 of the Limitation Act,
1963, governs suits seeking cancellation of an instrument
and prescribes a period of limitation of three years from the
date when the plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts
entitling him to such relief. The emphasis under Article 59 is
not on the date of the transaction per se, but on the accrual
of the cause of action, which, in cases involving allegations
of fraud or unauthorized execution of documents, hinges
upon the date on which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of
such facts.
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::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
18 ( 2026:HHC:32739)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 legallyunsustainable.
12.2. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the following
decisions of this Court, which have consistently held thatof
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 & Another7
rt
“10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion
that the defendants made an application for correctingthe 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 thatthe 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 afinding that in cases where the document is registered,
the knowledge must be presumed from the date ofregistration.
11.
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::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
19 ( 2026:HHC:32739)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 ofsuch 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 andof
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
rt
approached their brothers (original Defendants 1
and 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with
their possession and to partition the property andprovide 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 toapproach 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 ofthe registered sale deed. In this context, the trial
court opined that it was a triable issue anddeclined 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 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::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
20 ( 2026:HHC:32739)plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in
exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule
11(d) CPC.”
13. In this backdrop, the approach of the High Court in
.
reversing the well- reasoned order of the trial Court warrants
interference. The trial Court had rightly held that the issue of
limitation necessitated adjudication upon evidence,
particularly in view of the appellant’s assertion that the
Power of Attorney executed by him did not confer any
authority upon his father to alienate the suit property and
that the impugned transaction came to his knowledge only
at a much later point in time. In such circumstances, the
determination of limitation involved disputed questions of
of
fact that could not be summarily decided without the benefit
of trial. The High Court, however, proceeded to reject the
plaint solely on a prima facie assumption that the suit was
barred by limitation, without undertaking any examination as
to whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge was
rt
demonstrably false or inherently improbable in light of the
record. In the opinion of this Court, such an approach
amounts to an error of law and constitutes a misapplication
of the well-established principles governing the exercise of
power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. For the same reasons,
the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents are inapplicable, being factually
distinguishable.”
32. In the present case also, specific allegation of
fraud has been levelled by the plaintiff against the defendant
and the allegations which have been levelled in the plaint are
bundle of facts, which are factual in nature, and those can be
determined or adjudicated upon by leading independent
evidence by the respective parties. The averment of the plaint
shows that the plaintiff who is admittedly a blind lady of 87
years old, has approached the Court by levelling the allegation
that by fraudulent means, the defendant has
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
21 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
obtained/procured the relinquishment deed in his favour, and
thereafter, the mutation has been attested in his favour.
.
33. It is case of the plaintiff that being a rustic
villager, the defendant had duped her by obtaining her thumb
impression, and that her statement was taken in the
competent court of law by exerting pressure on her.
of
34. Therefore, the learned trial Court was well within
its right by coming to the conclusion that all the questions and
rt
the issues which have been raised by the plaintiff are triable
issues, and those cannot be rejected or disbelieved by
invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
35. The learned trial court has rightly come to the
conclusion that merely on the basis of the statement which
the plaintiff had made in Civil Suit No. 89/1 of 2007, it cannot
be inferred or deciphered that the suit lands in the said suit
and in the present suit are the same and identical. Even
otherwise, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the
statement which the plaintiff had made in the previous suit. It
no where suggests that she was well aware about the
execution of the relinquishment deed in favour of the
defendant.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
22 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
36. To the similar extent, the defendant has not been
able to establish that the suit land in the previous suit and in
.
the present suit is the same. Therefore, no strength can be
gathered by the defendant qua such document.
37. It is apposite to explain the nature and scope
conferred to this Court under Section 115 of the CPC and
of
analyze whether this Court is empowered to deal with the
issues raised by the petitioner in the instant case. The said
rt
provision reads as under:-
“Section 115. Revision-
[(1)] The High Court may call for the record of any case which
has been decided by any Court subordinate to such HighCourt and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such
subordinate court appears–
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or
with material irregularity, the High Court may make such
order in the case as it thinks fit:
[Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section,
vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an
issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except
where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party
applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit
or other proceedings.][(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or
reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies
either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.][(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other
proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other
proceeding is stayed by the High Court.]::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
23 ( 2026:HHC:32739)[Explanation.–In this section, the expression “any case which
has been decided” includes any order made, or any order
deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other
proceeding.]”
.
38. On bare perusal of the above provision, it is clear
that the High Court can only interfere with the orders of the
Subordinate Court if the court has committed illegality or
material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. It is
of
imperative to note that under the revisional powers, this Court
cannot attack the findings on the facts by the Subordinate
rt
Court and can only interfere if any infirmities are found with the
exercise of jurisdiction of the Court and not when the courts
erroneously decide the cases.
39. The primary object of the revision powers
conferred to the High Courts is to prevent subordinate courts
from acting arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally while they
exercise their jurisdiction. The aspect related to the revision
powers given to the High Court has been extensively dealt
with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments,
whereby the Hon’ble Court discussed the meaning and scope
of the said provision.
40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s D.L.F.
Housing and Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
24 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
vs. Sarup Singh and others, 1969(3) SCC 807, has
considered the provisions of Section 115 of CPC as follows:
.
“5. The position thus seems to be firmly established that
while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 115, it is not competent
to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or
even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to thejurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a)
and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do
not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed
it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additionalof
District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested
in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so
vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings
under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by
the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance
rt
of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also does not
seem to apply to the case in hand. The words “illegally” and
“with material irregularity” as used in this Clause do notcover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the
decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is
reached. The errors contemplated by this Clause may, in
our view, relate either to breach of some provision of law orto material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate
decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the
prescribed formalities have been complied with. The High
Court does not seem to have adverted to the limitationimposed on its power u/s 115 of the Code. Merely because
the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with thematter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the
question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings
pending decision of the appeal, could hardly justify
interference on revision u/s 115 of the Code when therewas no illegality or material irregularity committed by the
learned Additional District Judge in his manner of dealing
with this question. It seems to us that in this matter the High
Court treated the revision virtually as if it was an appeal.
41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.5622 of 2025, titled as P. Kumarakurubaran vs, P.
Narayanan & others, held as under:-
14. It is also to be noted that the appellant has categorically
averred in the plaint that he executed the registered power of::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
25 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
attorney in favour of his father solely for the limited purpose of
constructing a house 16 and carrying out related activities.
There is no express clause authorizing his father to sell the
suit property to any person without the appellant’s consent and
.
knowledge.Yet, the appellant’s father executed a sale deed in
favour of his granddaughter, going beyond the scope of the
power of attorney, which raises serious doubt about misuse of
authority and potential fraud. Such assertions cannot be
rejected in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the plaint discloses a
cause of action which cannot be shut out at the threshold.
Thus, the trial Court acted within its jurisdiction in refusing to
reject the plaint and in holding that the matter ought to
of
proceed to trial. The High Court, while exercising its revisional
jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, ought not to have
interfered in the absence of any jurisdictional error or
perversity in the trial court’s order. Rejecting the plaint where
substantial factual disputes exist concerning limitation and the
rt
scope of authority under the Power of Attorney, is legally
unsustainable.”
42. In Ajit Singh & others vs. Krishan Kumar, decided
on 18th October, 2023, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, held as
under:
“11. The same view is reiterated in a later decision of this
Court in the case of Managing Director (Mig) HindustanAeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway [(1972) 3 SCC 195]
wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court speaking throughHegde, J. clearly stated that the High Court under Section 115
CPC had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first
appellate court based on facts or even involving any error of
law. It was next observed that it was not the conclusion of theHigh Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to
make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate
court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or
may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear, that
it had jurisdiction to make that order. It was not the case that
the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally
or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court
could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the
Civil Procedure Code.”
43. In view of the observation as made hereinabove,
whereby the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
26 ( 2026:HHC:32739)
that the issues as raised by the plaintiff are triable issues,
which cannot be adjudicated and put to an end at the
.
threshold, therefore, the impugned order as passed by the
learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity.
44. Consequently, the present petition being devoid
of any merit deserves to be rejected. Order accordingly.
of
45. However, it is made clear that observations as
made in the present case will not have any bearing on the
rt
merits of the main case as these observations are strictly for
the disposal of the instant petition.
All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Romesh Verma)
Judge
July 29, 2026
(Nisha)
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2026 20:28:38 :::CIS
