Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Real Dreams Creations Llp Through ... vs Smt. Anita on 22 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063
1 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 1327 of 2025
M/S REAL DREAMS CREATIONS LLP THROUGH PARTNER PARTH
SENGAR
Versus
SMT. ANITA AND OTHERS
Shri Shantanu Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Shashank Jain - Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 [caveat].
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nitin Joshi -
Advocate for the respondent No. 7.
Shri Manish Sankhla - G.A. for the respondent No. 8/State.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION No. 324 of 2026
SANJAY
Versus
SMT ANITA AND OTHERS
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nitin Joshi -
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Manish Sankhla - G.A. for the respondent No. 8/State.
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 23-04-2026
17:01:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 2 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 Having regard to the similitude of controversy involved in these revision petitions, have been heard simultaneously and are being disposed of by this common order.
For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from C.R. No. 1327/2025.
02. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for hereinafter referred as 'CPC') has been filed against the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 6 for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.
03. Brief facts of the case are that the land bearing survey No. 294/1 admeasuring 5.313 hectares situated at village Nainod, Tehsil & District Indore (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') was owned by one Radhabai W/o Sadashivrao. Original owner of the land Smt. Radhabai W/o Sadashivrao Bhondwe by registered sale deed 28.10.1959 sold the suit property to one Prabhulal, who in turn on 30.11.1985 sold the same to Surendra Singh, the predecessor-in-interest (father and husband) of respondents No. 1 to 3, by registered sale deed. As per plaint averments, Surendra Singh was handed over the possession of the aforesaid property and after demise of Surendra Singh on 02.10.2017, plaintiffs continued to be in possession over the aforesaid land. When after death of Surendra Singh, plaintiffs obtained copies of revenue Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 3 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 record, discovered that the name of Govindrao (father of respondents No. 4 to
7) and thereafter name of aforementioned respondents has been mutated in the revenue record. Later they discovered that Govindrao, who was brother of original holder of the suit land Radhabai forged a suspicious Will dated 18.12.1978 shortly before her death. Plaintiffs initiated mutation proceedings before the Tehsildar, Malharganj in March 2024 wherein respondents No. 4 to 7 raised objections based on aforesaid Will and a subsequent Will allegedly executed by Govindrao in favour of the respondents on 04.10.2000. Therefore, plaintiffs alleging that cause of action for them to file suit arose when copies of revenue record were obtained by them and when mutation proceedings were initiated in the month of March, 2024 and when the defendants No. 1 to 4 tampered with the record of the plaintiffs' sale deed in the Registrar's office and finally when plaintiffs No. 2 to 3 were threatened to vacate the possession of the suit land on 20.07.2024, filed Civil Suit before the trial Court which was registered as Civil Suit No. 1058A/2024 on 25.11.2025 claiming relief of declaration and injunction in para-15 of the plaint. In the aforesaid civil suit, 2 separate applications under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC were filed, one by respondents No. 1 to 3 and another application under the same provision by respondent No. 6, both these applications for rejection of the plaint were contested by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein and by impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 4 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 order, both the applications have been rejected. This order Annexure A/1 is under challenge in these civil revisions.
04. Learned counsel for the applicants taking exception to the impugned order submits that the impugned order passed by the Court below is bad in law. It has not been considered that from the plaint allegations and documents annexed therewith, it was apparent that cause of action accrued firstly on 30.06.2021 when the copies of revenue record, khasra was obtained when it came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that suit land has been mutated in the name of Govindrao and subsequently in the name of respondents No. 4 to
7. However, despite the aforesaid knowledge, for the first time on 30.06.2021, Civil Suit has been filed on 21.08.2024 after period of three years when the cause of action first accrued. Relying upon para-30 of the judgment by Apex Court in Khatri Hotels vs. Union of India (2011) 9 SCC 126 and para 20 of Nikhila Divyang Mehta vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi 2025 SCC Online SC 779. Learned counsel submits that suit is apparently barred by limitation as prescribed under Article 58 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned counsel further submits that plaintiffs/respondents herein are not in possession over the suit land and, therefore, they were required to claim relief of possession and since they have not claimed relief of possession, therefore, suit for mere declaration and injunction is not maintainable. For this contention, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 5 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 he has placed on para 12 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Meharchand Das vs. Lal Babu Siddique (2007) 14 SCC 253. Learned counsel further submits that since main relief is time barred, therefore, ancillary reliefs also become unenforceable. To buttress this contention, he has placed reliance on para 14 & 16 of Nikhila Divyang Mehta (supra). Learned counsel for the applicants also relying on Section 9 of the Limitation Act that once limitation has started, it is not arrested, therefore, by way of clever drafting to circumvent provisions of Limitation Act, cause of actions which have been alleged to have arisen after 30th June, 2021 are only imaginary or illusory cause of action and virtually gives no cause of action to the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further submits that such frivolous or vexatious suits are abuse of process of law and these type of suits should be nipped in the bud as held by the Apex Court in T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 467. Learned counsel further submits that after alleged sale deed dated 30.11.1985 in favour of Surendra Singh, father and husband of the respondents No. 1 to 3. They have never been in the possession in the suit land and it cannot be assumed by any structure, imagination that from 1985 till death of Surendrasingh on 02.02.2017. Plaintiffs never came across revenue records which are showing mutations in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 7. Learned counsel further submits that if claimants were actually in possession over the suit lands and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 6 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 performing agricultural activities as claimed by them, certainly they had required chemical fertilisers, seeds and other goods which are essential for cultivation, they could have produced revenue record to show that they were in possession over the disputed lands, but the same has not been done or they have suppressed their knowledge of revenue entries prion to 30/06/2021 for frustrating limitation period.
05. Learned counsel for the applicants further submit that alleged sale deed of 1985 in favour of Surendra Singh is also under police scrutiny alongwith other near about 20 sale deeds in FIR lodged by Registrar himself as it is forged one not having requisite endorsements and signature which cannot be relied upon to prove the title of respondents No 1 to 3.
06. Hence, on the aforementioned contentions learned counsel for the applicants submits that order passed by the Court below is bad in law which has been passed ignoring the aforesaid contentions and, therefore, prays for allowing the revision petitions by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the applicants and dismissing the plaint in the aforesaid civil suit.
07. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon para 4, 10, 11, 12, 12.1, 12.2 & 13 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in P. Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 7 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 509 submits that order passed by the Court below is in accordance with law as issue of limitation necessitated adjudication upon evidence particularly in view of the respondents/ plaintiffs' assertion in the plaint. Plaint allegations are to be taken as true. Learned counsel further submits that in the impugned orders, learned trial Court has taken into considerations all the contentions raised by the applicants and has duly appreciated which has culminated in rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which cannot be taken exception to, therefore, urges the Court to dismiss these Civil Revisions filed by the applicants.
08. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
09. It is befitting to reproduce the Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for appreciating the controversy in right perspective which runs as under:-
"Court shall reject a plaint:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 8 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9.
Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."
9.1 In the instant revisions, grounds pressed are barred by law of limitation under Rule 11(d) and also non-disclosure of cause of action which is required under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC. Before adverting to the factual aspect of the instant case, legal position as elucidated by the Apex Court in its various judgments needs to be perused for appreciating the controversy in right perspective.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 9 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 9.2 Object for providing the aforesaid relief of rejection of plaint is to weeds about frivolous, vexatious and improper plaints at the very outset, thus, saving judicial time and resources. It was observed in paragraph 12 of the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC OnLine 394 that the entire purpose of conferment of such powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive is not permitted to occupy the time of the courts, and exercise the mind of the respondent. Such a remedy is necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so further judicial time is not wasted, as observed by the Supreme Court in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusal (2020) 7 SCC 366.
9.3 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 VII 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 VII 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 10 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 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 is 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.‖ 9.4 In para 23.6 of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali [Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 128], 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 11 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 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 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. If the suit filed by the plaintiff is allowed to continue it will definitely be a wastage of valuable judicial time 9.5 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.‖ 9.6 Subsequently, in the case of ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 12 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.
9.7 In the case of 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] also it is held further that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
9.8 In case of the ground of rejection of plaint, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bloom Dekor Ltd. vs. Subhash Himatlal Desai & Ors 1994 (6) SCC 322 has held that mean "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". The court observed in the case of Church Of Christ Charitable Trust vs M/S. Ponniamman Educational Trust 2012(8)SCC706 that cause of action refers to a bundle of facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit." A plaint that doesn't disclose a cause of action has no prospect of succeeding, it is therefore, in the common interest of the parties and also judicial time, that such a plaint be rejected Supreme Court in Raj Narain Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 13 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 Sarin (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Lakshmi Devi (2002) 10 SCC 501 also observed that where the plaint does not disclose a clear right to sue, it is liable for rejection.
9.9 Hon'ble Apex Court in ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163, has dilated what cause of action means as under (relevant para 12):-
―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 an 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."
9.10 While considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC only plaint allegations along with the documents filed therewith are to be looked into and defence cannot be considered for adjudicating the same. The Apex Court in the case of Kamala & others v. KT Eshwara SA and Ors (2008)12 SCC 661, the two judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 14 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 the conclusion as to rejection of plaint must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. The bench observed that what would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint.
For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Relevant paragraph 21, 22, 23 and 25 of the aforesaid judgments are reproduced as under:-
"21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another.
22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision.
23. The principles of res judicata, when attracted, would bar another suit in view of Section 12 of the Code. The question involving a mixed question of law and fact which may require not only examination of the plaint but also other evidence and the order passed in the earlier suit may be taken up either as a preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but, the said Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 15 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 question cannot be determined at that stage.
25. The decisions rendered by this Court as also by various High Courts are not uniform in this behalf. But, then the broad principle which can be culled out therefrom is that the court at that stage would not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law. In the event, the jurisdiction of the court is found to be barred by any law, meaning thereby, the subject-matter thereof, the application for rejection of plaint should be entertained.
24. It is one thing to say that the averments made in the plaint on their face discloses no cause of action, but it is another thing to say that although the same discloses a cause of action, the same is barred by a law."
9.11 In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra,(2003) 1 SCC 557 the Supreme Court also observed that it is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what need to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. Relevant para 9 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 16 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects."
9.12 Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors (2021) 9 SCC 99, the Supreme Court, while deciding the issue of "res judicata as a ground of rejection of plaint" observed that to reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to and the defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application.
10. In the light of aforesaid, it is to be seen whether any ground for rejection of the plaint is made out which has not been decided in accordance with the law by the Court below as contended by the applicant.
11. Since first and foremost contention that has been pressed into service in these civil revisions is of the suit barred by limitation, therefore, Article 58 of the Limitation Act is required to be reproduced which provides a suit for declaration must be filed within a period of three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. The said provision is extracted as under:- Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 17 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 58 To obtain any other declaration. Three When the right to sue first years. accrues.
12. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a suit to obtain any declaration must be instituted within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Khatri Hotels Private Limited (supra) has held that the use of the word `first' has been used between the words 'sue' and 'accrued', would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued.
13. In the instant case, from bare perusal of para-4 of the plaint allegations, which has been filed as Annexure P/2 and R/1, it is evident that plaintiffs averred that on the death of ancestor of plaintiffs Surendra Singh on 02.02.2017, plaintiff No. 3, who deals with sale and purchase of agricultural lands obtained certified copy a khasra record and found that earlier name of father of defendants No. 1 to 4/respondents before this Court and thereafter the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 18 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 name of defendants No. 1 to 4 has been mutated in the revenue records and to support this, Annexure- 6, certified copy of khasra panchshala year 1969-70 has been filed. From perusal of the endorsement on break of the aforesaid document, it is apparent that copy has been delivered on 30.06.2021. Thus, this is the date when respondents/plaintiffs before the trial Court came to know about the aforesaid mutations. Thus, first cause of action arose on 30.06.2021 whereas Civil Suit has been admittedly filed on 21.07.2024 after passing of three years prescribed as limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Thus, suit which has been filed is clearly barred by law of limitation. As held by Apex Court in Khatri Hotels Private Limited (supra) the limitation start from the first cause of action accrues and in the instant case it accrued on 30.06.2021 when the copy of the aforesaid khasra entry was obtained. In the aforesaid judgment, it has also been held that if a suit is based on multiple cause of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it isfiled beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued. In the plaint para 12 different dates after obtaining certified copy of revenue record till 20.07.2024 has been mentioned, but the subsequent dates will not arrest running of limitation period which Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 19 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 actually started on 30.06.2021. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the applicants that suit is barred by limitation is having substance. The same has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. It is also apparent from the perusal of the record that after alleged sale deed in favour of Surendra Singh executed in the year 21.11.1985. Applicants neither have been mutated in the revenue records nor their predecessor-in-interest have been mutated in the revenue record. They have also not filed any document to show that they were even in possession of the aforesaid suit land. In such a situation, plaintiffs were obliged to claim relief of possession that has not been claimed and this also makes aforesaid civil suit non-maintainable as per the provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 as argued by counsel for the applicants. In the instant case, even if plaint allegations are taken on their face value as is required for considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, cannot save the suit from rejection as it is apparently barred by law of limitation. By way of clever drafting, an illusion of subsequent cause of action has been shown in the relevant paragraph of the plaint where subsequent causes of action has been mentioned, but this can also not save the plaint. It is also to be noted as argued on behalf of the applicants that an FIR has been got registered by the Sub-Registrar himself at Police Station - Pandrinath, Indore involving as many as 20 sale deeds and the sale deeds executed in favour of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 20 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 Surendra Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs is also included.
14. Be that as it may since the aforesaid point is not under consideration of this Court for adjudicating these civil revisions, therefore, the concerned parties may take necessary criminal action in accordance with law, if any forgery or fabrication is found in the sale deeds which affects their rights.
15. Finding of the Court below in impugned order that point of limitation is of next question of fact and law, is not an inflexible rule that where point of limitation has been raised, it will always be mixed question of fact and law. Where bar of limitation is clearly and undisputedly as in the instant case is ascertainable from the averments of the plaint, the same can be rejected even without recording evidence which is also the purpose of carving of rejecting of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. In the case of celebrated judgment in Dahiben (supra), Court rejected the plaint on the aforesaid ground as it was clearly made out from the averments of the plaint that it is barred by limitation.
16. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it has been found that plaint in the instant case is clearly barred by law of limitation and cause of actions subsequent to date 30.06.2021 have been created by clever drafting of the plaint for circumventing the law of limitation and also creating an illusion of cause of action to sustain the same. Looking to the aforesaid clear avements made in the plaint, judgments relied upon by the respondents in P. Kumarakurubaran Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-04-2026 17:01:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11063 21 C.R. No. 1327/2025 & 324/2026 (supra) does not come to their rescue.
17. Resultantly, both the Civil Revisions having substance, succeed and are hereby allowed and the impugned orders 01.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed in Civil Suit No. 1058A/2024 on applications under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC of the applicants are hereby set aside. Applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by the applicants before the trial Court in both the suits are allowed and the plaint filed in the aforesaid civil suit deserve 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: 23-04-2026 17:01:34