Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akash Vashishtha vs Avinash Bihari Mishra on 10 November, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29442
1 CR-156-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 156 of 2022
AKASH VASHISHTHA AND OTHERS
Versus
AVINASH BIHARI MISHRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate along with Shri Saket Sharma -
Advocate for applicants.
Shri Raj Kumar Singh Paviya - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Government Advocate for respondent
No.2/State.
ORDER
1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 21/01/2022 passed by Seventh Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in RCSA No.794/2021 by which application filed by the applicant/defendant No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present civil revision in short are that the respondent No.1 has filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction as well as for declaration that the Will executed by Nanhe Bai on 25/8/1986, sale deeds executed on 31/7/2017, 2/2/2019 and 30/12/2020 be declared as null and void and a decree for possession was also sought. It was the case of the plaintiff that survey No.623 situated in Mauja Goshpura, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 21-11-2025 09:22:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29442 2 CR-156-2022 Tansen Nagar, Gwalior was in the ownership and possession of Ram Bihari Mishra who was the elder brother of the plaintiff. Ram Bihari Mishra executed a dastbardari in favor of his brothers Raj Bihari, Rakesh Bihari and Alakh Bihari as well as plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff and the other brothers of plaintiff, namely, Raj Bihari Mishra, Rakesh Bihari and Alakh Bihari became the owner and in possession of the property in dispute.
Oral partition took place between the plaintiff and his brothers Raj Bihari Mishra, Rakesh Bihari Mishra and Alakh Bihari Mishra and the disputed property came to the share of the plaintiff. Plaintiff and his brothers sold 14 biswa of land, i.e, 15,750 square feet of land forming part of survey No.623 to one Nanhe Bai, daughter of Ali Hasan @ Saiyed Hasan, vide registered sale deed dated 07/06/1976. Nanhe Bai by different sale deeds have alienated the entire 15,750 square feet of land.
Nanhe Bai, was a woman belonging to Muslim community, after her death, the defendant No.3 along with Bhavdev Sharma and Brij Bihari Singh Chauhan prepared a forged Will of Nanhe Bai dated 25/8/1986. On the basis of the said forged will, they got their names recorded in the revenue records in place of Nanhe Bai. On the basis of forged will, the defendant No.3 alienated 2,000 square feet of the land to defendants No. 4 to 7 by registered sale deed dated 31/7/2017. Thereafter, the defendant No.7 by registered sale deed dated 2/2/2019 alienated 500 square feet of the land to defendant No.1, which was the part of 2,000 square feet of land which was sold by sale deed dated 31/7/2017.
Thereafter once again 1,000 square feet of the land was sold by Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 21-11-2025 09:22:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29442 3 CR-156-2022 defendants No.4 and 5 to defendant No.1 by sale deed dated 30/12/2020 and the remaining 500 square feet of the land was also sold by defendant No.7 to defendant No. 2 by registered sale deed dated 1/1/2021. It was specifically claimed that the aforesaid 2,000 square feet of land was other than 15,750 square feet of land which was sold to Nanhe Bai. Thus, it was claimed that plaintiff came to know about the aforesaid forged Will as well as the sale transaction in the month of September 2021 when they found that defendant No. 1 and 2 were illegally raising construction over the property in dispute and in spite of objection, they did not stop. Thus, a suit was filed for declaration that the Will dated 25/8/1986 purportedly executed by Nanhe Bai in favor of defendant No.3 is null and void and the mutation of the name of defendant No.3 on the basis of Will is also bad. It was further claimed that the sale deeds 31/7/2017, by which 2,000 square feet of land was sold and sale deed dated 2/2/2019, 30/12/2020 and 1/1/2021 by which aforesaid 2,000 square feet of land was sold be declared as null and void. Mesne profits were also sought and it was also prayed that the defendants be restrained from raising any construction over the property in dispute and the defendants be prosecuted for committing fraud.
3. The defendant No.3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by time as the first sale deed was executed in the year 2017. Furthermore, multiple sale deeds have been challenged in a single suit. Proper valuation of Court fee has not been done.
4. The trial Court by impugned order dated 21.01.2022 has rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 21-11-2025 09:22:05 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29442 4 CR-156-2022
5. Reiterating the same grounds which were raised by the defendant in his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it submitted by counsel for defendants/applicants that the suit for multifarious reliefs is not maintainable. The 2000 square feet of land was sold by sale deed dated 31/7/2017, whereas the suit was filed in the year 2021, and thus, the suit is barred by limitation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings recorded by the Court below.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that the objection raised by the applicants is misconceived on two grounds: (i.) A nationwide lockdown was imposed with effect from 24/3/2020 on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court had relaxed the period of limitation and such relaxation continued till the month of February 2022. The civil suit was filed in the year 2021. Therefore, the period of limitation, if any, had already got relaxed by the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, In Re, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 . (ii) Furthermore, it is well established principle of law that where multiple reliefs are being claimed, then the longest period of limitation applicable to a particular relief would govern the suit. In the present case, apart from declaration of sale deeds as null and void, the plaintiff has also prayed for possession. The period of limitation for seeking possession is 12 years. The first sale deed i.e. of 2,000 square feet of land, was executed on 31/7/2017. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the suit was barred by time.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 21-11-2025 09:22:05 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29442 5 CR-156-2022
9. So far as the multifarious reliefs claimed are concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that even the said defence is frivolous.
10. It is well established principle of law that a plaint cannot, be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that multifarious reliefs have been claimed.
11. Furthermore, according to the plaintiff, 2,000 square feet of land which was never purchased by Nanhe Bai, was sold by defendant No.3 in favor of defendants No. 4 to 7 by registered sale deed dated 31/7/2017 on the strength of forged Will of Nanhe Bai. Thereafter by three sale deeds, i.e., 02/02/2019, 30/12/2020 and 1/1/2021, the aforesaid 2,000 square feet of land was sold in pieces, i.e., 500 square feet of land by sale deed dated 02/02/2019, 1,000 square feet of land by sale deed dated 30/12/2020 and 500 square feet of land by sale deed dated 1/1/2021.
12. Thus, all the reliefs which have been claimed by the plaintiff are interlinked and cannot be said to be relief based on different and independent cause of action.
13. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Aman Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 21-11-2025 09:22:05 AM