Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anwar Patel vs Smt. Shayarabai on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
1 C.R. No. 1004/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON 25TH MARCH 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 1004 of 2025
ANWAR PATEL
Versus
SMT. SHAYARABAI AND OTHERS
...................................................................................
Appearance:-
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vinay
Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinod Kumar Verma with Shri Hariom Patidar and Shri Ankit
Chourasiya - Advocates for respondent No. 1.
........................................................................................................
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
This revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‗CPC‘) has been preferred by the
applicant against the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure P/6)
whereby application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on behalf of
applicant/defendant No. 5 before the trial Court in RCSA 623/2020 filed for
rejection of the plaint, has been dismissed.
02) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff
before the trial Court) has filed Civil Suit No. RCSA/623/2020 against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
2 C.R. No. 1004/2025
present applicant and other respondents for relief of declaration, permanent
injunction, partition and possession with regard to the suit lands as per the
following table:-
S. No. Survey No. Area (in acres) Location
1 77/1 11.50 Nipania
2 78/2 4.40 Nipania
3 79/2 2.50 Nipania
4 57/1 5.48 Nipania
5 67/1 0.76 & 6.24 Nipania
2.1) The aforesaid lands have been mentioned in para-2 of the plaint,
but from perusal of para-16, 17 & 20 of the plaint, it is apparent that relief of
declaration of 1/5th share in the suit land has been claimed by the plaintiff with
regard to the lands survey Nos. 77/1 Rakba 11.50 acres, 78/2 Rakba 4.40 acres,
79/2 Rakba 2.50 acres situated at Village – Nipania, Tehsil & Dist. Indore
(M.P.) only.
2.2) It is also mentioned in the suit that the original land owner was
Sardar Singh Rajput, who passed away long ago. He was survived by his two
sons namely, Shri Bapusingh Rajput and Shri Nihalsingh Rajput. Defendants
No. 1 to 3 are the sons and the defendant No. 4 and plaintiff are the daughters
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
3 C.R. No. 1004/2025
of the Late Shri Bapusingh. Plaintiff has further stated that in the year 1968-69
to 1977-78, the land bearing survey Nos. 77/1, 78/2 and 79/2 were recorded in
the name of Bapusingh and subsequently the same were recorded in the name
of sons of Bapusingh (defendants No. 1 to 3) only and such mutation was
effected behind the back of the plaintiff and without her consent. Subsequently,
after the death of her brothers, name of their legal representatives was recorded
on land bearing survey No. 57/1 (part) in revenue records in between 1984-85
to 1987-88. It has been further alleged that the land bearing survey No. 77/1
was sold by her brothers to the present applicant and the same was recorded in
the name of the applicant in the revenue records. Plaintiff claims 1/5 th share in
the said land and the aforesaid lands also. It has been further pleaded that
representatives of defendant No. 2 Late Shri Narayan Singh filed a Civil Suit
No. 884/2017 before II Civil Judge Class II, Indore without impleading her as
party and ultimately the said suit was withdrawn in conspiracy with the legal
representatives of defendant No. 1/respondent herein. It is further pleaded that
the land bearing survey No. 77/1 admeasuring 2.86 hectare has been transferred
to and mutated in the name of defendant No. 5 under provisions of Section 190
of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short hereinafter referred as
‗the MPLRC’). It has been further alleged that the land bearing survey No. 77/3
admeasuring 1.25 acres was sold to defendant No. 7 by LRs. of defendant No. 1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
4 C.R. No. 1004/2025
vide a registered sale deed No. 1A/424 dated 29.05.2003. Similarly, the land
bearing survey No. 79/2 admeasuring 1.011 hectares was also sold to and
recorded in revenue records in the name of defendant No. 7. Defendant No. 4
has got her name mutated on the suit land vide order dated 17.07.1979 without
impleading the plaintiff or the defendants No. 1 to 3 and thus the same has been
stated not to be binding on the plaintiff. The land bearing survey No. 76/2
admeasuring 2.222 acres is sold to and is recorded in the name of defendant No.
8, a Housing Cooperative Society. The plaintiff claiming that the defendant No.
9 being the power of attorney holder filed the suit on behalf of the LRs. of
defendant No. 2 and, therefore, they have been impleaded as party to the suit.
Plaintiff further claims that it was on 01.01.2020, she got information about the
Civil Suit No. 884/2017 preferred by LRs. of defendant No. 2 and after
inspection of the documents appended thereto the cause of action in respect of
the land arose to the plaintiff, therefore, she claims relief as mentioned herein
above by filing aforementioned Civil Suit annexing the plaint (Ex.P/1).
2.3) Applicant/defendant No. 5 filed an application under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC for eviction of the plaint mainly on the ground that the suit is
hopelessly barred and not showing any cause of action inter alia among other
grounds. For ready reference, objections on the aforesaid application are
reproduced as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
5 C.R. No. 1004/2025
―a. The suit land has been transferred to and is mutated and
recorded in revenue records in the name of various other
persons and the said persons are also in possession thereof and,
therefore, the suits not maintainable and the plaint deserves to
be rejected.
b. The portion of suit land has been sold to Defendant No.8,
which being a housing cooperative society has got it diverted
developed it and is put to residential usage of its members
whereon a series of residential houses have been constructed
and thus the plaint thus deserves to be rejected. The relief
claimed in the plaint cannot otherwise be granted without
making all of the parties to the suit. The plaint thus be rejected.
c. The plaintiff did not file any document pertaining to the
death of Shri Sardarsingh or Shri Bapusingh with the plaint
and also no document was filed to establish her to be a
daughter of Late Bapusingh Rajput and thus the plaint
deserves to be rejected on this count.
d. The Petitioner heavily asserted on the fact that even as per
plaintiffs own averment, the mutation in respect of suit land
took place in the year 1978-79 and the transfers of land having
been made in the year 1987, 2003, etc. the suit is apparently
hopelessly barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act and
thus the plaint deserves to be rejected being time barred by
about 40 years.
e. The Plaintiff has purportedly stated to have gained
knowledge of the entire transaction on 01.01.2020 onlySignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:81756 C.R. No. 1004/2025
through the COS884/2017 wherein she was not impleaded as a
party. The Plaintiff has failed to disclose in her pleading about
the manner and means by which she got the knowledge about
the said suit.
f. The Plaintiff has failed to claim the relief of partition of the
suit land in the relief clause of the plaint as well as has not
sought specific consequential relief regarding the cancellation
of the registered deeds of conveyance and revenue proceedings
by which the suit land have been transferred.
g. The plaint has been filed against a Housing Co-operative
Society and thus the same is barred by virtue of Section 94 of
the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Society Act.
h. The plaint fails to disclose the definite cause of action
against the Defendants and thus deserves to be rejected.
i. The plaint has not been verified by the Plaintiff but has been
verified by her advocate and thus the plaint deserves to be
rejected due to non-observation of procedural laws and
directions under the code of civil procedure.
j. In the application, the Petitioner has also prayed for rejection
of counter claim filed by the Defendant No.4. It may be
mentioned that the said counter claim was filed basically
against the co-defendant which is neither maintainable nor was
entertainable, hence is barred by law. The counter claim was
neither properly valued nor was proper court fees paid.‖Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:81757 C.R. No. 1004/2025
2.4) The application was contested by the plaintiff. Learned trial Court
vide impugned order dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure P/6) dismissed the
application which has given rise to this revision petition.
3) Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that impugned
order passed by the Court below on his application is arbitrary, unjust, illegal
and against the settled principles of law. Learned senior counsel further submits
that from bare perusal of the plaint it is apparent that plaint is hopelessly barred
by time as it is assailing the mutations done in the year 1984-85 indirectly, the
relief claimed also assails the sale deeds which have been executed in favour of
different persons including the plaintiff long back, but the relief to set aside sale
deeds has not been claimed. Plaintiff has very cleverly drafted the plaint by
suppressing the date of death of his father Late Shri Bapu Singh so that a cloud
could be created over limitation and it could not be ascertained and illusory
cause of action could be created. Learned senior counsel further submits that
the suit is barred by Sections 31 & 34 of Specific Relief Act, coupled with the
fact that respondent No. 8 is a Housing Cooperative Society and notice under
Section 94 of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Society Act which is pari-materia
similar to provision of Section 80 of CPC, has not been complied with.
Mutation proceedings have been challenged after near about 40 years of death
of her father and grandfather and thus adverse inference regarding knowledge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
8 C.R. No. 1004/2025
and delay needs to be drawn against the plaintiff as the acts of the plaintiff are
in defiance to provision of Section 109 of MPLRC. The plaintiff has also not
filed any document to prove that she is in possession of the suit lands. She has
also not filed any document to prove that she being daughter of Late Shri Bapu
Singh Rajput. Her does not find place in family tree Annexure ‗A‖ annexed
with plaint as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. Learned senior counsel further
submits that the mutation done in the revenue records registered sale deeds are
in public domain, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the plaintiff was not
aware of the revenue proceedings and sale deeds relating to disputed lands
executed by the respondents and the sale deeds executed by the defendants
from their very inception and challenge thereto after more than 40 years is
barred by law of limitation. For this, he has also referred the Article 58 & 59 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short hereinafter referred as ‗the Limitation Act‘)
of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act. Thus, the suit filed by the
plaintiff is bereft of any cause of action and also hopelessly barred. The plaint
is also not verified as per provision of Order VI Rule 15 of CPC. Learned
senior counsel further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise
the jurisdiction of rejecting the plaint to nip in the bud the frivolous suit, hence
urges the Court to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned
order and allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
9 C.R. No. 1004/2025
rejecting the plaint and also dismissing the suit. To buttress his submissions,
learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the celebrated judgment passed
by the Apex Court in Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)
Dead through Legal Representatives & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 366 and also on
para-5 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in T. Arivandandam vs. T.V.
Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 and ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies
[(1989) 2 SCC 163]. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance upon para
14 & 15 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Kanakarathanammal vs.
Loganatha, AIR 1965 SC 271, last para of the judgment passed by this Court in
the case of Janoutibai vs. Rajobai 1985 MPWN 400, para 32 of Shivakalibai
vs. Meerabai 1991 MPLJ 102, para 19 to 20 of judgment passed by the
Karnataka High Court in the case of Tukaram vs. Shambhaji
MANU/KA/0498/1998 and para 17, 18 & 19 of the judgment passed by the
High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Govindrao vs. Dadarao
& Ors. MANU/MH/0645/2004.
04) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / plaintiff
Shayarbai submits that she is the daughter of Bapusingh, who passed away on
14.11.1980, survived by plaintiff and her sister Late Dulibai and brothers Late
Antarsingh, Late Narayansingh and Late Chandarsingh. She is not the daughter
of Late Antarsingh as argued by counsel for the applicant and therefore, she has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
10 C.R. No. 1004/2025
1/5th share in the property of Late Bapusingh, which is in dispute in the civil
suit filed by her.
4.1) Learned counsel further submits that name of the applicant could
not have been entered in the revenue record as ‗Mourushi Krishak’, which has
been wrongly entered in the year 1985-86. To buttress his submissions, learned
counsel has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the
case of Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh and Others reported in (1994) AIR
(SCW) 1387.
4.2) Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1 / plaintiff
came to know about the mutations when Civil Suit No.884/2017 was filed by
Bhagu Bai W/o Late Narayansingh and thereafter, she immediately collecting
necessary documents filed this civil suit, which is well within time. He further
submits that notice to respondent No.8 – Umang Grih Nirman Sahakari
Sanstha, Indore is not required as suit is not only against the society and even
he can delete the name of aforesaid Society with the permission of the Court.
4.3) Learned counsel further submits that after the death of Bapusingh
on 14.11.1980, the lands in dispute were taken care of by the brothers of the
plaintiff and who conspired and got mutated their names without taking consent
of plaintiff. Sister of the plaintiff i.e. Dulibai has filed a counter claim in the
suit claiming her 1/5th share in the property. Allegations raised for rejecting the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
11 C.R. No. 1004/2025
plaint in application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be decided only
on the basis of evidence and it cannot be said inferred on bare perusal of the
plaint, that suit is barred by limitation or it is not showing any cause of action.
4.4) Learned counsel further submits that for forging thumb impression
of late Antarsingh in mutation proceeding for land survey no 77/1 area 2.86
hectare and securing order dated 25/09/1987, an FIR No 490/2022 under
sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was got registered at police station
Lasudia Indore against applicant and others, at the behest of survivors of
deceased respondent No 1. On these miscellaneous contentions, learned counsel
submits that learned Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejecting the plaint,
therefore, this revision petition bereft of any substance, is liable to be
dismissed.
05) In reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that FIR
which was lodged at the behest of Mohansingh has been quashed by this Court
and therefore, now the FIR cannot be referred. Learned counsel submits that in
his earlier arguments he referred plaintiff as daughter of Antarsingh, which is
based on plaint allegations itself and in that plaint allegations to suppress the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
12 C.R. No. 1004/2025
facts with regard to limitation, date of death of Bapusingh has not been
disclosed.
06) Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant inviting attention of this
Court towards para 2 of the plaint submits that Family Tree, which has been
enclosed as Annexure-A ( ) with the plaint, does not disclose the
name of the plaintiff in survivors of the deceased Bapusingh, but even
assuming that she is daughter of Bapusingh does not have any adverse bearing
on his claim that suit is barred by limitation as present suit has been filed by the
plaintiff on 14.10.2020, which is near about 40 years after the death of
Bapusingh on 14.11.1980. Referring para 9 and 9-A of the plaint, learned
counsel further submits that the order by the revenue authorities has been
passed on 25.09.1987 and the suit has been filed 33 years after that. Mutation in
favour of sons of Bapusingh as per para 4 and 5 of the plaint was made in the
year 1984-85 and mutation in favour of defendant No.5 / petitioner was done on
17.07.1979 as per the plaint allegations, therefore, the suit is filed after 41 years
of the aforesaid mutation and even the Sale Deed, which has been executed by
the defendant No.7 and 8 as per para 13 and 14 of the plaint, this civil suit
which is filed after 20-22 years thereafter is clearly barred by limitation and it
does not require any inquiry and it is not a mixed question of law and fact as
mentioned by learned Trial Court in the impugned order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
13 C.R. No. 1004/2025
6.1) Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since defendant No.7
and 8 are Co-operative Housing Societies, hence notice under Section 94 of the
Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was mandatory requirement
before filing of the suit, which has not been followed. Learned counsel further
submits that no relief has been claimed challenging the mutation in favour of
sons of Bapusingh (brothers of plaintiff) and mutation in favour of defendants
No.4 and 5, therefore, subsequent mutation cannot be challenged.
6.2) Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that in the partition
suit, it is mandatory requirement that all the properties claimed to be partition
should be included and all the co-owners must be arraigned as either plaintiff or
defendant, which is lacking in the instant case. Hence, the suit which is barred
by law and also hit by other mandatory requirements, which has not been
followed, therefore, learned Senior Counsel urges this court for allowing this
revision petition by setting aside the impugned order and rejecting the plaint.
07) Heard and considered rival submissions raised at bar and perused
the record.
08) It is not res integra that only plaint allegations and documents filed
along with the plaint are to be seen for deciding the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC as held by the Apex Court in case of Kamala & Ors.
vs. KT Eshwara, SA and Ors (2008)12 SCC 661. Similar view has also been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
14 C.R. No. 1004/2025
taken by the Apex Court in case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra
(2003) 1 SCC 557. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid, this Court will go through
the pleadings in the plaint and documents filed therein to ascertain whether the
plaint allegations and documents filed therein reveals any actual contradiction
and whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or any other law.
09) From perusal of the plaint, it can very well be discerned that
original land owner of the disputed land was Late Shri Sardar Singh Rajput as
stated in para-1 of the plaint and he was survived by Late Shri Bapu Singh
Rajput, father of the plaintiff and Late Shri Nihal Singh. Late shri Bapu Singh
who as per plaintiff passed away on 14/11/1980 is survived by Shayara Bai,
plaintiff, Duli Bai and three sons, late Shri Antarsingh, late shri chandersingh
and late shri Narayansingh.
10) The allegations in para-4 of the plaint are that agricultural land
bearing survey No. 77/1, situated at Village – Nipania, Dist. Indore, Rakba
11.50 acre, without her consent and by playing fraud upon her has been
mutated in the name of sons of Late Bapusingh i.e. Late Antarsingh, Late
Narayansingh and Late Chandarsingh (brothers of the plaintiff) and without
impleading her and her sister Dulibai as party to the proceedings.
11) The land bearing survey No. 57/1 has also been got mutated in the
name of aforesaid persons and khasra panchshala thereof for the year 1984-85
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
15 C.R. No. 1004/2025
and 1987-88 have been annexed with the plaint. She has alleged that even
though she is having 1/5th share in the aforesaid disputed lands, but by playing
fraud, aforesaid undivided agricultural lands have been got mutated and sold to
defendant No. 5 and name of defendant No. 5 has also been got mutated. All
these aforesaid mutation proceedings have been done by playing fraud upon the
plaintiff and in collusion of his brothers and illegally her 1/5 th share in the
aforesaid properties have been sold which is void as it is against law. The order
passed by Collector in Case No. 40/suomotu revision/98-99 (State of M.P. vs.
Anwar), order dated 16.11.2005 has been passed without following due
procedure for mutation.
12) The allegations in para-9 of the plaint are that when plaintiff
perused Civil Suit No. 884/2017 (Bhagubai & Ors. vs. Anwar & Ors.), she
came to know that survey No. 77/1 situated at Village – Nipania, Rakba Paiki
4.26 acres has been sold to Faiju Patel s/o Bapu Patel (Defendant No. 6) and to
evade court fee on sale deed, an application under Section 198 of MPLRC was
filed which was registered on Case No. 46 -6/1986-87 wherein Tehsildar
passed an order of mutation on 25.09.1987. The aforesaid order was passed
after recording the statements of Late Antarsingh S/o Bapusingh, Kailash and
Anwar S/o Rahmat Ali, defendant No. 5 (petitioner herein).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
16 C.R. No. 1004/2025
13) It has also been alleged in para-10 of the plaint that on perusal of
plaint filed by legal heirs of defendant No. 3 she came to know that legal heirs
of Late Antarsingh (defendant No. 1) and legal heirs of 1(d) Jaswantsingh,
father of Rahul has also executed a sale deed No. 1 /424 dated 29.05.2003 for
the land situated in village – Nipania, survey No. 77/3, area 1.23 hectare has
been sold to defendant No. 7 which is also not binding on her as she was not
made a party to the aforesaid sale deed.
14) In para-11 of the plaint she has alleged that before Tehsildar, one
application under Sections 169, 190, 109 and 110 of MPLRC was filed which
was registered on case No. 31( )/46/1978-79 and the order was passed on
17.07.1979 whereby name of defendant No. 4 was directed to be recorded by
conspiring with the revenue officers without affording opportunity of hearing to
the plaintiff and legal heirs of defendants No. 1, 2 & 3. This order is also illegal
and not binding on the plaintiff. Similarly, survey No. 79/2, Rakba 1.011
hectare has been got mutated in the name of defendant No. 7 and Rakba 2.222
hectare of the aforesaid land, survey No. 76/2 has been sold to defendant No. 8
which is recorded in the name of aforesaid society wherein plaintiff has also
having 1/5th share.
15) From the aforesaid allegations, it is apparent that plaintiff is aware
of the aforementioned sale deed and mutation proceedings since very beginning
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
17 C.R. No. 1004/2025
of the sale deed and order of mutation. The aforesaid civil suit has been filed on
14.02.2020 near about more than 40 years after order dated 17.07.1979 and 17
years after the execution of the sale deed dated 29.05.2003 referred in para-10.
In para-17 of the plaint, the cause of action has been shown to have arisen on
01.01.2020 when a Civil Suit No. 884/2017 was filed by legal heirs of
defendant No. 2 wherein she was not made a party. The aforesaid illusory cause
of action is without any basis since it is not in dispute that plaintiff is daughter
of late Bapusingh, therefore, she can claim only through her father and suit
filed by legal heirs of defendant No. 2 Narayansingh will not give rise to any
cause of action to her for filing the present suit.
16) As per provisions contained in Article 58 of the Limitation Act, a
suit for declaration must be filed within a period of three years from the date
when the right to sue first accrues. Similarly, in Article 59 of the Limitation
Act, same period of limitation of three years has been mentioned. Both the
provisions are extracted as under:-
58 To obtain any other declaration. Three years. When the right to sue first accrues.
59 To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree Three years. When the facts entitling the
or for the rescission of a contract. plaintiff to have the instrument or
decree cancelled or set aside or the
contract rescinded first become
known to him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
18 C.R. No. 1004/2025
17) Aforesaid period has passed long back from the date of either
execution of the sale deeds as referred in the plaint or from the date of
mutations which have taken place in favour of other legal heirs of Late Shri
Bapusingh, who are brothers of the plaintiff and mutation in favour of the
applicant herein. This is apparent from the plaintiff’s own averments of the
plaint and requires no evidence for its determination.
18) Even though in para-17 of the plaint, cause of action has been
shown to have arisen on 01.01.2020, but actually it is without any basis.
Plaintiff has not claimed that she has obtained any certified copy of mutation
proceedings based on sale deed and, therefore, she came to know for the first
time about the mutation proceedings and the sale deeds executed by the legal
heirs of his deceased brothers on 01/01/2020 as shown in para 17 of the plaint.
There is nothing in the plaint to show that at any point of time as shown in
plaint, cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff. As held by the Apex
Court in ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [(1989) 2 SCC 163], what
cause of action means has been held in para 12 which is reproduced as under:-
―12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it
would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support
his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle
of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the
plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include
some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such anSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:817519 C.R. No. 1004/2025
act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the
actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the
material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise
evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary
for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree.
Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to
immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has
no relation whatever to the defense which may be set up by the
defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief
prayed for by the plaintiff.”
19) Hon’ble Apex Court in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 has held that the basic question to be decided while
dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether
a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory
has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. In case
of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 : 1977 SCC OnLine
SC 286 at page 470 also the Apex has emphasized that irresponsible law suits
should be nipped in bud. Relevant paragraph 5 runs as under:-
“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the
petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court
repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of
the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly
plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif’s Court,
Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in
receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly
vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11
CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:817520 C.R. No. 1004/2025
fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a
cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining
the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is
the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would
insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so
that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The
Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr.
XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned
Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked
on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:
―It is dangerous to be too good.‖
20) In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that cause of action stated in entire plaint is not real, but it is illusory
cause of action which is the result of clever drafting only. Plaintiffs/respondents
No. 1 to 3 have not substantiated the pleadings with any supportive document
even to prima facie satisfy the Court that they have any real cause of action for
filing the aforesaid suit. In para 23.6 of Dahiben (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that it is duty cast on the Court while adjudicating the application
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to determine whether the plaint discloses a
cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction
with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
Similarly In the matter of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs Charity Commr reported
in (2004) 3 SCC 137 Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the trial court must
remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
21 C.R. No. 1004/2025
sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care
to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has
created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first
hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code.
21) If the suit filed by the plaintiff is allowed to continue it will
definitely be a wastage of valuable judicial time. Hon’ble Apex Court in the
matter of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1986 AIR 1253 has
observed the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive,
should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following
words :
―12. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to
prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of
the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The
sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head
unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary
civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to
reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.‖
22) In the instant case, Plaintiff has pleaded about fraud committed
upon her by his brothers and other respondents in getting mutated disputed
lands in their name, but she has not given any specific particulars of the fraud
which could arrest the period of limitation and, therefore, she is not entitled to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:817522 C.R. No. 1004/2025
take benefit of Section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963. It has been argued on behalf
of the respondent/plaintiff that she gained knowledge of the alleged fraud on
01.01.2020 when she perused Civil Suit No. 884/2017 filed by legal heirs of
Respondent No. 2, but no details have been given as to how she inspected
aforesaid Civil Suit on the aforementioned date.
23) To appreciate the controversy with regard to arrest of limitation
period till discovering of the fraud allegedly played upon the plaintiff, S. 17 of
Limitation Act is relevant and is reproduced as under:-
―17. Effect of fraud or mistake.–(1) Where, in the case of any
suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed
by this Act,–
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the
defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or
application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such
person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a
mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the
plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him;
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or
applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with
reasonable diligence, have discovered it, or in the case of a
concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had
the means of producing the concealed document or compelling
its production:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be
instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any
charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any
property which–
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
23 C.R. No. 1004/2025
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable
consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and
did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to
believe, that any fraud had been committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable
consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the
mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason
to believe, that the mistake had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for
valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the
concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have
reason to believe, that the document had been concealed.
(2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented
the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation,
the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made
after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution
of the decree or order:
Provided that such application is made within one year from the
date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the
case may be.‖
24) From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision this plea of plaintiff is
not acceptable as Section 17 of the Limitation Act postpones limitation in cases
of fraud only when the plaintiff discovers the fraud or when with the exercise of
reasonable due diligence, have discovered it. In the instant case, it is well
within the knowledge of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint that after death of
her father Bapusingh on 14.11.1980 names of her brothers/respondents were
mutated in the revenue record in the year 1984-85. Documents relating to
mutation are in public domain and open to inspection for all and sundry at any
point of time. Failure to take any step to challenge the challenged the mutation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:817524 C.R. No. 1004/2025
proceedings undertaken in the year 1984-85, for over thirty six years no action
has been taken by the plaintiff. Further, the fraud plea in the plaint lacks the
specific particulars required by law. There are no particulars as to who, when or
by what means fraud was committed and a bare and unparticularized allegation
of fraud is insufficient to attract the benefit of Section 17 as held by the Apex
Court in para 18 to 21 of judgment in Santosh Devi v. Sunder, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1808. Relevant para graphs are reproduced as under:-
―17. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the Courts below,
we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record
reveals that the disputed document is a registered sale deed. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner has signed the sale deed. We
are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a
document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as
held by this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353.
The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below:
―27. There is a presumption that a registered document is
validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie
would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a
person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the
instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said
presumption.‖
(Emphasis supplied)
In view thereof, in the present case, the initial onus was on the
plaintiff, who had challenged the sale deed.
18. When fraud is alleged against the defendant, it is an
acknowledged rule of pleading that the plaintiff must set forth the
particulars of the fraud which he alleges. In the present case,
fraud is alleged as a ground upon which the plaintiff justifies the
institution of the suit long after the expiry of the period normally
allowed for the institution of the suit. Though no specific
reference to the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:817525 C.R. No. 1004/2025
1963 (for short, ‗the Limitation Act‘) is made in the plaint, it is
manifest that the pleading proceeds upon the hypothesis that the
plaintiff had also contributed along with the defendant in the
purchase of the subject property and at the time of the sale, the
plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the sale consideration. In other
words, the fraud was played upon the plaintiff to sign the sale
deed and thereby transfer the subject property. The requirement
of Order VII Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, are clear. It is
necessary that the plaint should show the ground upon which the
exemption from the normal period of limitation is claimed. The
question is whether the plaint in this case fulfils the requirements
of law. As observed by Lord Selborne in Walling Ford v. Mutul
Society, [L.R.] 5 App. Cas. 685:
―With regard to fraud, if there be any principle which is
perfectly well settled, it is that general allegations however
strong be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient
even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought
to take notice.‖
19. It is not the mere use of general words such as ‗fraud’ that
can serve as the foundation for the plea. Such expressions are
quite ineffective to give the legal basis in the absence of
particular statements of fact which alone can furnish the
requisite basis for the action.
20. Order VII Rule 6 uses the words ―the plaint shall show the
ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed‖. The
exemption provided under Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act
are based on certain facts and events. Section 17, with which we
are concerned, provides for a fresh period of limitation, which is
founded on certain facts.
21. The matter can also be looked at from a different angle.
Assuming for the moment that the defendant was a party to the
fraud as alleged relating to the sale transaction, whether the
same by itself is sufficient to save limitation under Section 17 of
the Limitation Act. We are of the opinion that the fraud relating
to the sale transaction as alleged itself would not help the
plaintiff in getting over the plea of limitation in this case. As
already discussed, under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the
plaintiff should have been kept out of knowledge of his right to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
26 C.R. No. 1004/2025
sue by means of fraud. We are of the opinion that the alleged
fraud relating to the sale transaction itself has nothing to do with
the question viz., that the plaintiff had been kept out of knowledge
of his right to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed because
of fraud.”
In the light of the aforesaid, the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of
Section 17 of the Limitation Act.
25) In the instant case, plaintiff has indirectly challenged sale deeds
executed by the respondents more than two decades ago, but no relief in the
plaint in this regard has been claimed, therefore, also her suit is not
maintainable as barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
26) In case of Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198 : 2025
SCC OnLine SC 703 at page 203 in similar factual matrix as in the instant
case, a suit challenging family partition of year 1968 the trial court, considering
the facts, allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC and dismissed the
suit, finding no cause of action for filing the suit. However, the appellate court
found that there were triable issues that required consideration. The appellate
court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had a legitimate claim over the joint
family properties, and in the absence of any notice to the plaintiffs regarding
the partition, the suit was remanded back to the trial court for fresh
consideration. Hon’ble Apex Court restored dismissal of the suit. Relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are reproduced as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
27 C.R. No. 1004/2025
“11. The sole argument advanced by the respondent-plaintiffs is
that the suit was only for partition, filed in the year 2023 and was
within the limitation period as the limitation will be counted from
the date of their knowledge of the sale deed. However, upon
examining the pleadings before the trial court and the appellate
court, it is evident that the plaintiff failed to address the crucial
question of when they became aware of the registered sale deeds.
If they had prior knowledge of the sale deeds, they failed to
specify the exact date of such knowledge. Additionally, the
pleadings suggest suppression of essential facts by the plaintiffs.
12. In the case at hand, partition took place way back in the year
1968, which is evident from the revenue record entries. The suit
is filed in the year 2023 i.e. after a period of 55 years. Further,
many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds
in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on
perusal it is observed that these were in fact registered sale
deeds.
13. A registered document provides a complete account of a
transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana [Suraj
Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1
SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2012) 169 Comp Cas 133 :
(2012) 340 ITR 1] held as under : (SCC pp. 664-65, para 15)
―15. … ‗17. … Registration of a document [when it is
required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered
instrument] [Ed. : Section 3 Explanation I TPA, reads as
follows:―S. 3 Expln. I–Where any transaction relating to
immovable property is required by law to be and has been
effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such
property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property
shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the
date of registration….‖(emphasis supplied)]] gives notice to the
world that such a document has been executed.
18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions
relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or
destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents
thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions
and execution of documents. Registration provides information to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
28 C.R. No. 1004/2025
people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent
of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In
other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular
property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to
any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s)
presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives
solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal
importance or relevance by recording them, where people may
see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars
are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with
regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with
immovable property can rely with confidence upon the
statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said
Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which
the title to the property may be affected and secure
extracts/copies duly certified.’ [Ed. : As observed in Suraj Lamp
& Industries (P) Ltd. (1) v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363,
pp. 367-68, paras 17-18.] ‖
14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be
assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the
registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the
partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them
being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma,
these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition
been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the
plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot
reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-defendants, Mr
Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund
Bhavan Trust v. Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj
Bhonsle [Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Chhatrapati Udayan Raje
Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle, (2024) 15 SCC 675 : 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3844] to substantiate the contention that the suit was
barred by limitation. It was observed as follows : (SCC paras 22
& 25)
―22. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by
court auction and registered in the first instance and when
another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale deed in
1952, there is a constructive notice from the date of registration
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
29 C.R. No. 1004/2025
and the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property
Act, comes into operation. The possession, in the present case,
also has been rested with the appellant before several decades,
which operates as notice of title. …
23.-24. ***
25. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts
below have held that the question of the suit being barred by
limitation can be decided at the time of trial as the question of
limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Though the
question of limitation generally is mixed question of law and
facts, when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court can
come to a conclusion that under the given circumstances, after
dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of
cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the plaint can
be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.‖
16. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal
[Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13
SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] , this Court laid down the
scope of Order 7 Rule 11CPC : (SCC pp. 178-79, para 7)
―7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if
conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is
needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC
can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The
relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the
application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire
and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing
any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7
Rule 11CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to
terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions
enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11CPC to the exercise of power
of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The
averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out
whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the
suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the
question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would
always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
30 C.R. No. 1004/2025
of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the
prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the
allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole
on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any
law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for
rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order
7 Rule 11CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint
has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it
in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the
earlier stage.‖
17. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali [Dahiben v.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 : (2020) 4
SCC (Civ) 128] , it is stated as under : (SCC p. 377, para 23)
―23. … 23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is
that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is
barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the Court would not
permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in
the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the
sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.‖
18. In our considered opinion, the trial court had rightly allowed
the application of the appellant-defendants under Order 7 Rule
11CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a
meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of
action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no
justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the
matter to the trial court.
19. The suit was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the
impugned order dated 8-1-2025 [Anand Kumar v.
Chandrashekhar P.M., 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 8] passed by the
High Court is set aside, and both these appeals are hereby
allowed.‖
27) In view of Article 58 & 59 of Schedule appended to Limitation
Act, 1963 and in conjunction with meaningful reading of the plaint averments
and the documents filed therewith, this Court is of the considered view that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
31 C.R. No. 1004/2025
plaint does not disclose any real cause of action and the suit is manifestly
barred by limitation.
28) In the instant case it is not in dispute that defendant/respondent No.
8 is a Society, but compliance of Section 94 has not been made by giving a
notice as required under the aforesaid section to the Society before filing a suit
which is similar to the provision as contained in Section 80 of CPC. It is also
relevant to mention in the instant case that plaintiff has not filed any document
along with the plaint and has not even pleaded that she is in possession of the
suit land.
29) Accordingly, in the instant case it has been found that plaintiff has
never been in the possession of the suit land as no supportive document is
annexed with the plaint and it has also been found that by way of clever
drafting, point of limitation has been unsuccessfully tried to be defeated,
therefore, contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff that in the instant case
there is no point which touches the jurisdictional error committed by the court
below in rejecting application of applicant filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC, is not sustainable and arguments advanced in this behalf by the plaintiff’s
side are discarded.
30) It is no inflexible rule that the point of limitation is always a mixed
question of fact and law and plaint cannot be rejected. Where bar of limitation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
32 C.R. No. 1004/2025
is clearly and undisputedly ascertainable from the averments of the plaint as in
the instant case, the same can be rejected. In the case of much celebrated
judgment passed by the Apex Court in Dahiben (supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Court rejected the plaint on the ground as it was clearly made out from the
averments of the plaint that it is barred by limitation.
31) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has
also contended by relying on para 32 of the judgment passed by coordinate
Bench of this Court in Shivakalibai (supra), para 19 & 20 of the judgment
passed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Tukaram (supra) and para
14 & 15 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Kanakarathanammal (supra) that in the instant case, all the co-sharers have
not been joined, therefore, suit is not maintainable and also relying upon last
para of the judgment passed by this Court in Janoutibai (supra) and para 17 to
19 of the judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay in Govindrao (supra),
it has also been concluded that if the entire properties have not been included,
then the suit is not maintainable. The Civil Suit No. RCSA 623/2020 filed by
the plaintiff is seeking relief of partition of the suit property along with other
reliefs mentioned in para 20 of the plaint, but neither all the properties of
Bapusingh have been included for partition nor all the interested parties have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8175
33 C.R. No. 1004/2025
been impleaded, therefore, suit filed by the plaintiff is also not maintainable in
the light of aforesaid judgments on this count also.
32) Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that in the instant case, it has
been found that illusion of cause of action is created to frustrate the point of
limitation, whereas there was no actual cause of action to file the suit and the
suit for the reliefs claimed were barred by limitation.
33) Resultantly, Civil Revision having substance, succeeds and is
hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure P/6)
passed in RCSA 623/2020 is hereby set aside. Application filed by the
applicant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC before the Trial Court is allowed and
the plaint filed in the aforesaid suit before 24 th District Judge, Indore deserves
to be and is hereby rejected entailing dismissal of aforementioned suit.
No order as to costs.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-03-2026
16:55:50
