Gujarat High Court
Mukeshbhai Bachubhai Patel vs Pushpaben W/O Chankalchand Vacheta on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 19/08/2025
Pronounced On : 16/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 304 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
MUKESHBHAI BACHUBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
PUSHPABEN W/O CHANKALCHAND VACHETA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.ANSHIN DESAI, SR ADVOCATE with
MR HITESH N ACHARYA(2302) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Opponent(s) No. 2,3,4,6
MR YATIN SONI(868) for the Opponent(s) No. 5.1,5.2,5.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Bharat Rao and Mr.Yatin Soni, learned Advocates waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective Respondents.
2. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed challenging the Order dated 04.07.2024, passed below Exh.24 and Exh. 21 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Special Civil Suit No. 235 of 2017. By way of the Page 1 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined said Order, the Application filed by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC', for short) has been rejected.
3. For the sake of brevity, the parties herein are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.
4. The brief facts leading to the present Civil Revision Application are that the Plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 235 of 2017, seeking a declaration that the sale deed, executed in favour of Defendant No. 3 on 02.02.2007, is not binding upon him, and further, that the said sale deed is illegal, void, and without any valid consideration. In the Suit, the Plaintiff also challenged the agreement to sell executed by Defendant No. 3 in favour of Defendant No. 4 on 24.01.2013, as well as the consequential sale deed executed in favour of Defendant No. 4, praying that both be declared illegal and unenforceable. In addition, the Plaintiff sought to set aside the consent decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2013, dated 04.04.2015.
5. The case of the Plaintiff is that a fraud was perpetrated upon him whereby a sale deed was executed in the year 2007, in favour of Defendant No. 3. It is further alleged that although the Plaintiffs were shown as confirming parties to the subsequent sale deed, dated 02.01.2014, they had been misled and induced to believe that the said document was intended only for the purpose of cancelling the earlier sale deed, dated 02.02.2007.
Page 2 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Acting under this belief, the Plaintiffs went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and signed the sale deed, dated 02.01.2014, as confirming parties. The Plaintiff has also sought reliefs for declaration of his 4/5th share in the suit property and a decree of permanent injunction in respect thereof.
6. The Defendants entered appearance in the said Suit and thereafter filed an Application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the Plaint. Upon considering the averments in the Plaint and the documents annexed thereto, the Ld. Trial Court rejected the said Application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Application has been preferred SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER - DEFENDANT
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Anshin Desai, appearing for the Defendant, has primarily contended that, upon a plain reading of the Plaint and the documents annexed thereto, it becomes evident that the Suit is ex facie barred by the law of limitation. According to him, the record itself establishes that the Plaintiffs were, at all material times, fully aware of the transactions in question. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs had themselves executed a Power of Attorney in favour of deceased Defendant No. 1, who happened to be the brother of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 and the son of Plaintiff No. 1. Since the said Power of Attorney has never been challenged by the Plaintiffs, it is argued that Page 3 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 cannot now maintain a Suit to challenge the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1, who is their own brother and duly authorized attorney.
8. Mr. Desai has submitted that a careful reading of the averments made in the Plaint reveals that the Plaintiffs themselves have stated that the original owner of the suit property was one Shankalchand Punaji Vacheta, who passed away on 10.08.1996, leaving behind his wife Pushpaben, i.e. Plaintiff No.1, his daughters, Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, and his son, deceased Defendant No.1 Bharat Shankalchand Vacheta. It is further stated in paragraph 2 of the Plaint that upon the demise of Shankalchand, the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 became the owners of the suit property. Mr.Desai has drawn attention to the fact that the Plaint itself records that, owing to proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, a Power of Attorney was executed in the year 2007, in favour of Defendant No.2 for the purpose of resolving the said dispute, and that possession of the suit property was handed over to Defendant No.2 in the same year. It is the Plaintiff's own case, that Defendant No. 3 is alleged to have committed fraud in getting the sale deed executed in his favour.
9. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate, has further submitted that it is nowhere the case of the Plaintiffs in the Plaint that, Defendant No.1 who was the son of Plaintiff No.1 and brother of Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 lacked the authority or power to execute Page 4 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the sale deed in favour of a third party. On the contrary, he points out that the sale deed executed in the year 2007, clearly bears the signatures of Plaintiff No.1, as well as those of Defendant No.1, acting in the capacity of Power of Attorney holder for Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4.
10. He has further argued that even from the pleadings of the Plaint, it is evident that the Plaintiffs themselves have categorically stated that the fact of execution of the said sale deed came to their knowledge during the lifetime of deceased Defendant No. 1, in the year 2012, and that a legal notice was issued by them to Defendant No. 3 on 04.08.2012 in relation to the alleged illegal transaction. Averments were also made in the Plaint that after the death of Defendant No.1, on 03.09.2012, Defendant No.4 approached the Plaintiffs and informed them about the disputed transaction. Therefore, Mr. Desai contends that it stands conclusively established that the Plaintiffs were fully aware of the execution of the sale deed, atleast as early as the year 2012.
11. Moreover, the Ld. Senior Advocate has argued that, since Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 were both signatories to the sale deed executed in the year 2007, they were fully aware of the transaction from its very inception. Despite this, the Plaintiffs chose to challenge the said sale deed, only in the year 2017, almost a decade later. Therefore, it is contended that the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation and Page 5 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined deserves to be rejected on that ground alone.
12. He has further submitted that Civil Suit filed in the year 2013, had also been instituted in connection with the same property, in which a Court Commissioner was appointed on 06.07.2013. On the said date, when the Court Commissioner visited the site to carry out the commission work, the Plaintiffs were admittedly present. This clearly indicates, he argues, that the Plaintiffs were fully aware of the disputed transaction as early as the year 2013. Therefore, their attempt to challenge the sale deed only in the year 2017 is an afterthought and renders the Suit clearly barred by limitation
13. It has also been submitted that the present Suit seeks to challenge the sale deeds executed in the years 2007 and 2014 is filed only on 12.06.2017. He has pointed out that Defendant No.4 had earlier instituted Civil Suit No.381 of 2013 for injunction, wherein it was categorically stated that Defendant No.3 had become the lawful owner of the property pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Plaintiffs on 02.02.2007. Subsequently, Defendant No.3 executed another sale deed in favour of Defendant No.4, and in that transaction, the Plaintiffs were confirming parties. The said sale deed was executed on 01.01.2014, and on that basis, consent terms were filed, leading to disposal of Civil Suit No.381 of 2013 by a consent decree.
14. It has been further argued that, prior to filing of the consent Page 6 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined terms before the Court, the present Plaintiffs were deleted as party Defendants from that Suit. Hence, if the Plaintiffs were genuinely aggrieved by the consent decree passed in Civil Suit No.381 of 2013, their only remedy was to prefer an appeal under Section 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the Plaintiffs could not have maintained an independent Suit challenging the said consent decree, and the present Plaint is therefore, barred by law.
15. Learned Senior Advocate for the Defendant has also contended that the present Suit has been instituted only after the Special Civil Application filed by the Plaintiffs was allowed, on 13.08.2013, and the subsequent appeal preferred by the Defendants, was dismissed on 05.10.2016. He further pointed out that even the Special Leave Petition filed, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to be dismissed on 24.07.2018. According to him, this sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the Plaintiffs were at all times aware of the transactions in question.
16. He has submitted that the Plaintiffs themselves had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.1, as far back as in the year 2007, and notably, that Power of Attorney, has never been challenged by them. Pursuant to the said Power of Attorney, a sale deed was executed in the same year by Defendant No.1, acting as the lawful representative of the Plaintiffs. On a bare perusal of the sale deed dated 02.02.2007, Page 7 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined it is evident that the document bears the signatures of Plaintiff No.1 and the deceased Defendant No.1, who was the brother of Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and the son of Plaintiff No.1. This, according to the learned Senior Advocate, leaves no doubt that the Plaintiffs were conscious and consenting participants in the transaction and cannot now seek to invalidate it under the guise of ignorance or alleged fraud
17. Moreover, learned Senior Advocate for the Defendant has argued that a plain reading of the Plaint itself makes it abundantly clear that the Plaintiffs were fully aware of the execution of the sale deed, as far back as in the year 2007. He pointed out that although the Plaintiffs have claimed that they were allegedly misled into appearing before the Sub-Registrar, in 2014, under the pretext that the document was meant to cancel the earlier sale deed, the record unmistakably shows that the Plaintiffs were in fact confirming parties to the sale deed executed in the year 2014.
18. He further submitted that the Plaintiffs' own pleadings reveal that, they were aware of the entire transaction even in 2007, when the Power of Attorney was executed and the sale deed was registered. The Plaintiffs themselves have averred that during his lifetime, Defendant No.1 who was their brother and son had informed them about the transaction. Defendant No.1 expired on 03.09.2012, and it is the Plaintiffs' own case that during the rituals following his demise, Defendant No.4 Page 8 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined informed them once again regarding the same sale transaction. This clearly establishes that by September 2012, the Plaintiffs were fully aware of the impugned transactions.
19. In fact, the Plaintiffs had also issued a legal notice dated 04.08.2012 (Mark 3/13), which further demonstrates their knowledge of the alleged sale deed. Additionally, the Defendants were parties to Civil Suit No.381 of 2013, where the sale deed executed in the year 2007 was specifically referred to. Despite all these facts being within their knowledge, the Plaintiffs did not challenge the transaction within the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the present Suit filed in 2017, is hopelessly barred by limitation.
20. Mr. Desai relies upon the following judgments in support of his aforesaid contentions:
i. (2020) 7 SCC 366 in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representative and others;
ii. (2011) 9 SCC 126 in the case of Khatri Hotels Private Limited and another vs. Union of India and another;
iii. 2023 (3) GLH 441 in the case of Jaman Shamji Fadadu vs. Sadik Mahmad Sidik & 3 ors., iv. 2022 (4) GLH 390 in the case of Whiteswan Buildcon LLP vs. Thakor Praveenji Mangaji, Page 9 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined v. 2025 (5) SCC 198 in the case of Uma Devi and others vs. Anand Kumar and others;
vi. 2020 (1) GLR 586 in the case of Sakina S. Sunesara vs. Shia Imami I.N.J. Samaj and vii. 2025 (0) AIJEL - SC 75165 in the case of Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) vs. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj
21. With regard to the issue that the Plaintiffs cannot maintain a separate Suit to challenge a consent decree, learned Senior Advocate for the Defendant has submitted that the law on this point is well settled. He contended that since the Plaintiffs were no longer parties to the proceedings at the time when the consent decree was passed, their only recourse in law was either to prefer an appeal under Section 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with the leave of the Appellate Court, or to move a review application before the same Court that passed the decree.
22. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2020 (1) GLR 586 [Sakina S. Sunesara v. Shia Imami Ismaili National Jamat Samaj], which has been subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC-75165. Based on these authorities, it has been urged that the Plaint is not maintainable Page 10 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined in its very inception and deserves to be rejected outright.
23. Learned Senior Advocate has further argued that the Ld. Trial Court erred in dismissing the Defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the issue could not be decided without recording oral evidence. According to him, once the plaint itself discloses that the suit is barred by law, both by limitation and for want of proper remedy, the Court ought to have exercised its power to reject the plaint at the threshold, instead of prolonging unnecessary litigation
24. In view of the foregoing, Mr. Desai urges that the present Civil Revision Application be allowed.
SUBMISSION OF THE PLAINTIFF:
25. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. B. T. Rao for the Plaintiff has mainly argued that while deciding the application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court only will have to look at the Plaint and documents annexed with the Plaint and from the averments made in the Plaint, it cannot be said that the Plaint is barred by law.
26. It has been argued by learned advocate for the Plaintiff that the sale-deed that has been executed in the year 2007, is during the pendency of restraining order passed by the Gujarat High Court in the proceedings, pending under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and, therefore, sale-deed, executed in the year 2007, is void ab Page 11 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined initio.
27. It is the case of the Plaintiff that a fraud has been committed on the Plaintiff at the time of taking the Plaintiff's signature, as confirming party, in the sale-deed, dated 02.01.2014, in view of the fact that the Plaintiffs were induced by informing them that the Plaintiffs are going before the Sub-registrar office, to cancel sale-deed, dated 02.02.2007 and even if the sale-deed dated 02.02.2007, is taken into consideration, no sale consideration has been received by the Plaintiff with respect to the said transaction.
28. With respect to the consent decree, it is the case of the Plaintiff that, the same has been passed, in Civil Suit No.381 of 2013, the same is behind the back of the Plaintiff and the same is after the present Plaintiffs were deleted from the suit proceedings and therefore also the same cannot be taken into consideration.
29. Learned advocate for the Plaintiff has also argued that while filing the suit, the Plaintiff has given all the particulars of facts that have taken place before filing the suit and there is no suppression found, at the end of Plaintiff while filing the suit. The fact remains that the power of attorney that was executed in favour of defendant no.1, has already been cancelled and, therefore, defendant no.1 could not have executed a sale-deed on 02.02.2007, as power of attorney holder of Plaintiff nos.2 to 4. Page 12 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
30. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs, on the other hand, has argued that the Plaintiffs became aware of the execution of the sale deed, dated 02.01.2014, only upon the passing of the order in Regular Civil Suit No.381 of 2013 and the subsequent mutation entry No.7121, recorded on 11.05.2017, in the revenue records. It is, therefore, submitted that the cause of action to institute the present Suit arose, only in the year 2017, and hence, the Suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
31. It has also been urged that the Plaintiffs first came to know about the impugned transaction only after receiving summons, in Civil Suit No.502 of 2013, wherein reference to the sale deed in question was made. Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, it cannot be said that they were in prior knowledge of the transaction or that the Suit is barred by limitation. The Plaintiffs maintain that the right to sue accrued only upon discovery of the transaction in the year 2017, and the present Suit has been filed promptly thereafter.
32. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs, in response to the contention that the relief sought for setting aside the consent decree, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.381 of 2013, is barred by law, has submitted that such an argument is misconceived. It is contended that the Plaintiffs' case is founded on the allegation of fraud having been perpetrated in the process of obtaining the said consent decree, and therefore, the bar under Page 13 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Section 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply in such circumstances.
33. It has been further argued that the challenge to the consent decree is merely ancillary to the Plaintiffs' primary relief, which pertains to partition and declaration of rights in the suit property. The Plaint, according to the learned Advocate, discloses a clear cause of action based on fraud and misrepresentation, and as such, cannot be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
34. He has also submitted that the question as to when the Plaintiffs acquired knowledge of the sale deeds executed in the years 2007 and 2014, as well as whether they were induced into signing the sale deed dated 02.01.2014, under the pretext that it was for the cancellation of the earlier deed, dated 02.02.2007, are questions of fact that can only be determined after recording oral and documentary evidence. At this preliminary stage, such disputed factual questions cannot be adjudicated, merely on the basis of pleadings. Hence, it has been urged that the present Civil Revision Application deserves to be dismissed in limine.
35. With respect to the contention of the defendant that the reliefs with respect to challenging the consent decree, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.381 of 2013, being barred by law and the only alternative that the Plaintiff with is to seek leave for filing Page 14 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined appeal and or to file review application, learned advocate for the Plaintiff has argued that said relief cannot be said to be barred by law in view of the fact that it is the case of the Plaintiff that fraud has been played, while getting consent decree, in Civil Suit No.381 of 2013. Moreover, it has been also argued that the said relief is ancillary to the main relief that has been sought in the Plaint, as it is for a claim of partition of the suit property and in view of the said fact, Plaint cannot be rejected, under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, in view of the fact that unless and until oral evidence is taken, as to the date of knowledge with respect to the execution of the sale-deed of the year 2007 and 2014 and the fact whether the Plaintiffs were induced by defendant in getting sale-deed executed, on 02.01.2014, under the guise of informing the Plaintiff that the Plaintiffs have to go to Sub-registrar office to cancel the sale- deed, dated 02.02.2007, the same cannot be decided. It has been argued that in view of these facts, the present Civil Revision Application is required to be rejected.
36. Learned advocate for the Plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments:
i. 2025 (0) AIJEL - HC - 250958 in the case of Bhanuben Chandubhai Patel vs. Kalidas Shankerbhai Patel;
ii. 2024 (0) AIJEL - HC - 249043 in the case of Vijay Christian vs. Helinaben ;Page 15 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined iii. 2024 (0) AIJEL - HC - 248770 in the case of Shri Nijanand Jogani Abhiyan Trust vs. Parshottam Narsinbhai Patel;
iv. (2006) 5 SCC 353 in the case of Prem Singh vs. Birbal ;
v. decision rendered in Civil Appeal No.5622 of 2025, dated 29.04.2025 in the case of P.Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan;
vi. (2001) 7 SCC 549 in the case of Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian ;
vii. (2005) 6 SCC 149 in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. T. Suryachandra ; and viii. (2018) 6 SCC 422 in the case of Chhotanben vs. Kiritbhai ANALYSIS
37. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having considered the Plaint and the documents annexed with the Plaint and the order that has been passed below Exhibit 21 & 24, in Civil Suit No.235 of 2017. The following are undisputed facts:
i. The suit property belonged to Shakalchand Punaji Vacheta, who has expired on 10.06.1996.
ii. The legal heir of Shakalchand Punaji Vacheta were Page 16 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Plaintiffs and deceased defendant No.1.
iii. The power of attorney has been executed by the Plaintiffs in favour of Bharatbhai Sakalchand Vacheta, who is the brother of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 and son of Plaintiff No.1.
iv. Pursuant to the said power of attorney, a sale deed is executed in the year 2007 by the Plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No.3. The said sale deed is signed by Plaintiff No. 1 and deceased defendant No.1 for himself and as power of attorney holder of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4.
v. The power of attorney executed in favour of defendant No.1 has not been challenged by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs in the Plaint have stated that in the year 2007, there were disputes under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and for which a power of attorney was given in favour of defendant No.2 and a fraud has been committed by defendant No.3 in getting the sale deed executed in their favour.
vi. In the Plaint, it has been stated that on 30.01.2007, the possession of the suit property was handed over to defendant No.3. It is the case of the Plaintiff in the Plaint that, the said sale deed, executed on 02.02.2007, is in breach of the order passed in the litigation filed under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act.
vii. The Plaintiff has at paragraph No.12 of the Plaint stated Page 17 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined that the fact about execution of the said sale deed dated 02.02.2007, first came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff in the year 2012, when deceased defendant No.1 informed him about the same.
viii. A legal notice is issued by the Plaintiffs, through their advocate to defendant No.3, on 04.08.2012. It is also an admitted position that defendant No. 1 expired on 03.09.2012.
ix. It has been stated in paragraph No.13 of the Plaint that during the period of last rituals of the brother of deceased defendant No.1 Bharatbhai Vacheta, defendant No.4 had met the Plaintiffs and informed him about the alleged fraud committed by defendant No.3.
x. Civil Suit No. 381 of 2013 has been filed with respect to the suit property wherein it has been stated that a sale deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.3 and a Court Commissioner is also appointed, in the said suit, the Plaintiffs were also party defendants.
xi. A sale deed has been executed on 02.01.2014 which has been executed by defendant No.3, in favour of defendant No.4, in which the present Plaintiffs are confirming parties in the said sale deed, there is also a mention of execution of sale deed in favour of defendant No.3, dated 02.02.2007.
Page 18 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
38. From a careful reading of the averments made in the Plaint, it becomes evident that the Plaintiffs were fully aware of having executed the power of attorney in favour of the deceased Defendant No.1. The record clearly indicates that the sale deed dated 02.02.2007, was also well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs, during the lifetime of their brother, Defendant No.1, as early as in 2012. Despite such knowledge, the Plaintiffs neither challenged the said transaction, nor contended at any stage that Defendant No.1, lacked the authority to act as their power of attorney holder.
39. It is also apparent that the entire foundation of the Plaintiffs' case rests on their allegation that, at the time of executing the subsequent sale deed, dated 02.01.2014, they were induced and misled into believing that the said document was being executed merely cancel the earlier sale deed dated 02.02.2007. However, the said contention, when read in the light of the Plaintiffs' own participation as confirming parties in the 2014 transaction, unmistakably shows that they had knowledge of and acquiesced in the prior transaction whereby Defendant No.3, had become the owner of the property.
40. The facts of the present case clearly show that by clever drafting, the Plaintiffs have tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation, by stating that only recently they have came to know about the fact that the document executed in the year 2014, was actually a sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 Page 19 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined and not a cancellation of sale deed, dated 02.02.2007. If the entire averments of Plaint are taken into consideration, the Plaintiffs have come forward with a case that, only because the Plaintiffs received the summons of Civil Suit No.502 of 2013 and when the Plaintiffs had taken search from the Sub Registrar's Office, the Plaintiffs came to know about the execution of sale deed of the year 2014, but the fact remains that the Plaintiff No.1 himself is the signatory to the sale deed, executed on 02.02.2007, the Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 have not challenged the power of attorney executed in favour of deceased defendant No.1, the Plaintiffs have admitted in the Plaint that, they were aware of execution of sale deed in the year 2012, even the notice was issued by the Plaintiffs was in the year 2012, and therefore, the Plaintiffs had clear knowledge of the execution of sale deed.
41. The facts on record clearly indicate that, through clever drafting, the plaintiffs have attempted to portray the suit as being within the prescribed period of limitation, by asserting that they became aware only recently that the document executed in 2014, was in fact a sale deed in favour of defendant no.4, and not a deed of cancellation of the earlier sale deed dated 02.02.2007. However, when the averments in the plaint are read as a whole, it becomes apparent that this plea is an afterthought. The plaintiffs have sought to justify the delay by stating that it was only upon receiving summons in Civil Suit Page 20 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined No.502 of 2013 and conducting a search in the Sub-Registrar's office that they discovered the execution of the 2014 sale deed.
42. The documents and Plaint, however, speak a different story.
Plaintiff no.1 is herself a signatory to the sale deed executed on 02.02.2007, and plaintiffs nos.2 to 4 have never challenged the power of attorney granted to the deceased defendant no.1 under which the transaction was carried out. Moreover, the plaintiffs have admitted in the plaint that they were aware of the sale deed's execution as early as 2012, and had even issued a legal notice in that very year. These facts conclusively demonstrate that the plaintiffs were in full knowledge of the transactions, and the plea of recent discovery has been raised merely to overcome the bar of limitation.
43. The facts of the present case clearly show that by clever drafting, the Plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation by stating that only recently they have came to know about the fact that the document executed in the year 2014, was actually a sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 and not a cancellation of sale deed, dated 02.02.2007. If the entire averments of Plaint are taken into consideration, the Plaintiffs have come forward with a case that only because the Plaintiffs received the summons of Civil Suit No.502 of 2013 and when the Plaintiffs had taken search from the Sub Registrar's Office, the Plaintiffs came to know about the execution of sale deed of the year 2014, but the fact remains that the Plaintiff No.1 Page 21 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined himself is the signatory to the sale deed executed on 02.02.2007, the Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 have not challenged the power of attorney executed in favour of deceased defendant No.1, the Plaintiffs have admitted in the Plaint that they were aware of execution of sale deed in the year 2012 even the notice was issued by the Plaintiffs was in the year 2012, and therefore, the Plaintiffs had clear knowledge of the execution of sale deed.
44. The fact shall also have to be considered that after issuing notice in the year 2012, the Plaintiffs themselves have gone before the Sub Registrar's Office and affirmed the sale deed executed in the year 2014, as confirming parties in the said sale deed, and therefore, the said sale deed executed in the year 2014, specifically states about the sale deed of the year 2007.
45. From the pleadings on record, it is abundantly clear that possession of the suit property had already been handed over by the plaintiffs to defendant no.3. This fact alone negates the contention that the plaintiffs were unaware of the execution of the sale deed in 2007. Once possession was transferred, the plaintiffs were fully conscious of the transaction and its consequences, and it cannot now be contended that they remained ignorant of the sale deed for nearly a decade thereafter.
46. As to the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs that the sale deed dated 02.02.2007, was executed in breach of an order Page 22 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined passed in proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, it is pertinent to observe that, even after the conclusion of the said proceedings, the plaintiffs themselves confirmed and ratified the earlier sale deed by participating as confirming parties in the subsequent sale deed dated 02.01.2014. Their voluntary participation in the 2014 transaction is a clear acknowledgment of the validity of the earlier conveyance of 2007.
47. Further, it is also relevant to note that when Civil Suit No.381 of 2013 was filed by defendant no.4 against the present plaintiffs and defendant no.3, the plaint in that suit contained an explicit reference to the execution of the sale deed dated 02.02.2007, in favour of defendant no.3. Thus, by 2013, the plaintiffs were undeniably aware of the existence of the 2007 transaction. During the pendency of that very suit, the plaintiffs not only failed to challenge the sale deed of the year 2007, but also went on to confirm it through the subsequent sale deed dated 02.01.2014. Thereafter, on the basis of consent terms filed by the parties, a consent decree was drawn in that suit. It is this consent decree that the plaintiffs now seek to challenge through the present proceedings, which further demonstrates that the present action is a belated attempt to reopen issues long settled and acknowledged by their own conduct.
48. It must also be noted that, on the date when the consent terms were filed, the present plaintiffs were not parties to Civil Suit No.381 of 2013. Consequently, the plaintiffs could not have Page 23 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined challenged the decree arising from that suit through the present proceedings.
49. In law, once a decree is passed on the basis of a compromise between parties before the court, any person who was not a party to that proceeding, cannot assail the decree by way of a separate suit. The only remedies available in such circumstances are either to prefer an appeal under Section 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure with the leave of the Appellate Court, or to move a review application before the very court which passed the decree.
50. Accordingly, the relief sought in the present plaint to declare the consent decree dated 04.04.2015, passed in Civil Suit No.381 of 2013, as illegal, is ex facie barred by law. This position stands well settled by the Full Bench decision in Sakina Sultanali Sunesra (Momin) and Another v. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj, which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL SC 75165. In view of this binding precedent, the relief sought by the plaintiffs with respect to the consent decree is barred by law.
51. Considering the facts of the present case, on meaningful reading of the Plaint, the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit. The Apex Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Trough Legal Representtatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, Page 24 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined wherein it has held as under in paragraph No.24.2:-
24.2 In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satypal this Court held that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the Plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the folloiwng words: (SCC p.
470, para 5) "5. ... The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of hte Plaint it is manifestly vesatious, 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..." (emphasis supplied)."
52. With respect to the judgment in the case of Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under in paragraph No.30:
"30. While enacting Article 58 of he 1963 Act, the legislature has designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the 1908 Act. The word "first" has been used beween the words "sue" and "accrued". This 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. To put it differetnly, successive violation of the right will Page 25 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined not give rise to fresh cause 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."
53. With respect to the judgment in the case of Jaman Shamji Fadadu v. Sadik Mahmad Sidik reported in 2023 (3) GLH 441, wherein it has been held as under in paragraph No.27:-
"27. At this stage, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CS Ramaswami v. V. K. Senthil (supra) is also required to be taken note of wherein, it has been held and observed that the averments and allegations in the Plaint are required to be considered and if the allegations are found to be vague and only by a clever drafting, the suit is sought to be brought within the period of limitation, the same should be rejected at the threshold. Relevant paragraphs 30 and 31 are reproduced hereinbelow:
"30. Even the averments and allegations with respect to knowledge of the Plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said to be too vague. Nothing has been mentioned on which date and how the Plaintiffs had the knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/or misrepresentation. It is averred that the alleged fraudulent sale came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs only when the Plaintiffs visited the suit property. Nothing has been mentioned when the Plaintiffs visited the suit property. It is not understandable how on visiting the suit property, the Plaintiffs could have known the contents of the sale deed and/or the knowledge about the alleged fraudulent sale.Page 26 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
31. Even the averments and allegations in the Plaint with respect to fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations how the fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating in the Plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the Plaint, otherwise merely by using the word "fraud", the Plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation. Therefore, even if the submission on behalf of the respondents - original Plaintiffs that only the averments and allegations in the Plaints are required to be considered at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is accepted, in that case also by such vague allegations with respect to the date of knowledge, the Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the documents after a period of 10 years. By such a clever drafting and using the word "fraud", the Plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation Act. The Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation........."
54. With respect to the judgment in the case of Whiteswan Buildeon LLP v. Thakor Praveenji Mangaji reported in 2022 (4) GLH 390, wherein it has been held as under in paragraph No.9:-
"9. It is well settled proposition of Law that while examining an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the sum and substance of the Plaint, recitals made in Page 27 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the Plaint and the accompanying Documents are required to be examined and the defence of the Defendants is irrelevant. The issue on merit of the matter which may arise between the Parties would not be in the realm of the Court at that stage. The defence taken by the Defendant in the written Statement cannot be taken into consideration and hte Plaint has to be read as a hole and the Application cannot be decided in context of few averments made int eh Plaint."
55. With respect to the judgment in the case of Uma Devi and Others v. Anand Kumar and Others reported in (2025) 5 SCC 198, wherein it has been held as under in paragraph Nos.13, 14, 15 & 16:-
"13. 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.
14. The learned senior counsel for the defendants/appellants, Mr. Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844) to substantiate the Page 28 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined contention that the suit was barred by limitation. It was observed as follows:
"16. 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 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.
17. XXX
18. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts below have held that 23 (1977) 4 SCC 467 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 VII Rule 11".
15. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v.
Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174, this court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC :
"The Plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC can be Page 29 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined 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 VII Rule 11, CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC 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 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 V11 Rule 11 of CPC 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".
16. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366, it is stated as under -
Page 30 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined "The underlying object of Order VII 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".
56. The above referred judgment will be applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that Plaintiffs themselves were signatory of sale deed in the year 2014 as they were confirming party in the said sale deed and from the entire record it can be clearly established that the right to sue just accrued in the year 2007 when the Plaintiffs came to know of execution of sale deed.
57. The judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the plaintiffs in the case of Bhanuben Chandubhai Patel v. Kalidas Shankerbhai Patel, reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL - HC 250958, is distinguishable on facts and cannot assist the plaintiffs in the present matter. In that case, the Court had occasion to consider a situation where the plaintiffs had genuinely acquired knowledge of the impugned sale deed only within three years prior to filing the suit. However, in the present case, the record clearly demonstrates that the plaintiffs were at all times aware of the execution of the sale deed of 2007. They were active participants in subsequent related transactions, including the 2014 sale deed, where they appeared Page 31 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined as confirming parties. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs came to know of the sale deed belatedly or that their cause of action arose within three years preceding the filing of the suit. Accordingly, the ratio of the judgment in Bhanuben Chandubhai Patel (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
58. With regard to the decision in Vijay Christian v. Helinaben, reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL - HC 249043, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In that matter, the primary dispute pertained to possession of the property, and the Court's observations were confined to issues arising from that context. The Court had also considered the fact that the suit property in question included a separate survey number which was not part of the original agreement between the parties to that suit. Hence, the findings therein were based on distinct factual circumstances concerning possession and demarcation of property. In the present case, however, the controversy revolves around the validity of the sale deeds executed in 2007 and 2014, and not about possession or boundaries of the land. Therefore, the principles laid down in Vijay Christian v. Helinaben (supra) do not have any bearing on the present dispute.
59. The judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the plaintiffs in Prem Singh v. Birbal, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353, is clearly distinguishable on facts and has no application to Page 32 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the present case. In that matter, the deed in question had been executed when the plaintiff was a minor, rendering it void ab initio. The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the suit could be instituted within twelve years of the execution of the deed or within three years of the plaintiff attaining majority. The context, therefore, related to computation of limitation in cases involving a void transaction executed during minority which is a situation entirely absent here.
60. Similarly, reliance placed by the plaintiffs on P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan, Civil Appeal No.5622 of 2025, is also misplaced. That decision dealt with a case where the question of limitation turned on the plaintiff's date of knowledge of a fraudulent transaction. In the present case, however, the plaintiffs were at all material times aware of the sale deeds of 2007 and 2014 and had themselves participated as confirming parties. Hence, they cannot claim the benefit of the extended period under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, and the plaint cannot be treated as filed within limitation.
61. As regards the judgment in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 422, that case too arose in a completely different factual matrix. It pertained to disputes over validity of a transaction executed without consent and without any contemporaneous knowledge of the aggrieved party. In the present case, by contrast, the plaintiffs' knowledge and Page 33 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined participation in the transactions are clearly borne out from the record. Accordingly, none of the judgments relied upon by the plaintiffs lend any support to their case.
62. The present case, when examined in its entirety, reveals that the Plaint is nothing but a clear example of an illusory cause of action. A clever attempt to dress up a time-barred and legally untenable claim as a subsisting dispute. The pleadings themselves demonstrate that the Plaintiffs were at all material times aware of the transactions now sought to be challenged. The sale deed of 2007 was executed by Plaintiff No.1 along with her son, the deceased Defendant No.1, acting as the power of attorney holder for the other Plaintiffs. Further, in 2014, the Plaintiffs voluntarily appeared before the Sub-Registrar's Office and signed the sale deed as confirming parties. In view of these admitted facts, there is no real or genuine cause of action disclosed in the Plaint, but merely a feigned one, crafted to overcome the bar of limitation.
63. It is a settled principle of law that when a plaint discloses no genuine cause of action but only creates an illusion of one through artful drafting, the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court must not permit the process of law to be misused to reopen transactions that are conclusively completed and acted upon, particularly when the Plaintiffs have themselves participated in those very transactions. Here, the allegations of fraud and Page 34 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined inducement are wholly vague, unsupported by any particulars as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC, and are raised only to camouflage the true nature of the claim, which is barred both by limitation and settled legal principles.
64. In such circumstances, allowing the suit to proceed would be an abuse of the judicial process and contrary to the intent of Order VII Rule 11(d), which empowers the Court to "nip in the bud"
vexatious and meritless litigation that is founded upon illusory causes of action. The Courts are not required to conduct a full- fledged trial where, from the face of the plaint itself, it is evident that no actionable right survives. The present plaint, therefore, fails to disclose any real or legally sustainable cause of action and stands squarely barred by law. It thus deserves to be rejected at the threshold, sparing the parties unnecessary litigation and safeguarding the sanctity of judicial time
65. In view of the said fact as the suit that has been filed by the Plaintiffs is for cancellation of transaction the same would be governed under Article 56, which reads as under:-
"Article 56 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 specifies a three-year limitation period for a suit to declare the forgery of an instrument, which starts running from the date the issue or registration of the instrument becomes known to the Plaintiff. This means a Plaintiff seeking to challenge an instrument as forged must file their suit within three years of discovering the forgery, Page 35 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined or risk the suit being barred by the statute of limitations."
66. In the present case, it clearly emerges from the averments of the Plaint that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The record leaves no room for doubt that the Plaintiffs, as well as the deceased Defendant No.1, were at all times fully aware of the transactions in question and yet chose not to take any steps to assert their alleged rights for several years. This is not a situation where any act of fraud, forgery, or fabrication has recently come to light, justifying a delayed action. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs have sought to revive a long-concluded transaction by weaving a narrative of ignorance and inducement that is plainly inconsistent with their own admissions in the pleadings.
67. The so-called cause of action projected in the Plaint is, therefore, nothing more than a legal fiction being a belated attempt to breathe life into a claim that is extinguished both in fact and in law. Courts have repeatedly held that such contrived or illusory causes of action do not warrant the indulgence of a full trial. The Trial Court, however, failed to appreciate this settled principle and erred in dismissing the Defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
68. In these circumstances, the Plaint being ex facie barred by limitation and founded upon a fictitious cause of action, Page 36 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/304/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined deserves to be rejected at the threshold. The law does not permit parties to perpetuate stale claims under the guise of discovery or ignorance when their own conduct from a bare perusal of the Plaint and documents therewith demonstrates otherwise. Hence, the order of the Trial Court cannot be sustained.
69. In view of the foregoing discussion and the findings recorded hereinabove, the present Revision Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court rejecting the Defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is hereby set aside. The application filed by the Defendant under the said provision stands allowed. Consequently, the Plaint filed in Special Civil Suit No.381 of 2013 is ordered to be rejected.
70. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
71. After the pronouncement of the above judgment today, the learned advocate for the original plaintiff has sought stay of the operation of the order. In view of the fact that the plaint has been rejected, no injunction can be granted. Request is rejected.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 37 of 37 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:07 IST 2025