Gujarat High Court
Chanchalben Ishwarbhai Vasava vs Decd. Ambalal Ishwarbhai Vasava ... on 24 June, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHANCHALBEN ISHWARBHAI VASAVA
Versus
DECD. AMBALAL ISHWARBHAI VASAVA THROUGH LHRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MUHAMMADYUSUF M KHARADI(9509) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
MR VEDANT D GAIKWAD(10444) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.2,1.3,1.4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN) Captioned appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 20.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgment") passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Savli, district Vadodara in Special Civil Suit no.22 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit") whereby, the trial Court has rejected the plaint, accepting the application of the defendant no.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the suit.
Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined
2. Mr Muhammadyusuf M. Kharadi, learned advocate for the appellant - plaintiff submitted that the suit was filed, seeking partition; however, upon application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code being preferred by the defendant no.3, raising objections, namely, suppression of material fact; the suit being barred by limitation; and no cause of action, the learned Judge, allowed the application and the plaint has been rejected. It is submitted that the learned Judge, has placed reliance on the documents produced by the defendant no.3, which would be impermissible inasmuch as, it is well-settled that while considering the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, only the plaint and the documents together with the plaint, can be looked into. Hence, the learned Judge, has travelled beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code while rejecting the plaint and such exercise, is erroneous.
2.1 It is further submitted that, it is true that Special Civil Suit no.1067 of 2000 was instituted by the plaintiff with similar prayer of seeking partition; however, in the year 2017, the suit came to be transferred from Vadodara District Court to Savli Court, which had the jurisdiction. Thereafter, on 12.04.2018, order has been passed whereby, the Special Civil Suit no.1067 of 2000, was dismissed for want of prosecution. As per the order, notice was issued to the plaintiff on 10.02.2018 - Exh.61, which was returned with an endorsement that the plaintiff is not residing in the said village. Notice, Exh.60, to the defendant was also issued; however, upon production of the death certificate of the defendant, that the order has been passed and the suit, has been dismissed for default. It is further submitted that within two months of the transfer, the suit has been dismissed, which could not have been done.
2.2 It is submitted that therefore, the present suit has been filed in terms of the provisions of Order IX Rule 4 of the Code which, Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined permits bringing of fresh suit. So far as non-disclosure of the previous suit is concerned, Order VI Rule 13 of the Code speaks about presumptions of law. It is submitted that when the law permits filing of the fresh suit, there is a presumption about the previous proceedings and the plaintiff, need not plead in the suit more particularly, when the prayers were similar and identical. Therefore, suppression of material fact cannot be a ground available to the defendants.
2.3 It is further submitted that the learned Judge, committed a grave error in rejecting the plaint by observing that the plaintiff, has suppressed the fact of filing of the previous suit and had the factum of suits disclosed, the suit, would have been dismissed only on the ground of limitation. It is further submitted that the trial Court, misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that there is no cause of action available to the plaintiff. It is submitted that considering the nature of the judgment passed and the error committed, the appeal deserves consideration.
3. On the other hand, Mr S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate assisted by Mr Vedant D. Gaikwad, learned advocate for the defendant no.5 submitted that the plaintiff, had filed a Special Civil Suit no.1067 of 2000 (re-numbered as Special Civil Suit no.18 of 2017) with identical prayers, namely partition. Relief of partition was based on plaintiff's ouster from the property, relying upon the mutation entries in the revenue record. Prayer was also prayed that defendant no.1, the brother, be declared as not the exclusive owner of the land in question. It is submitted that the suit, came to be dismissed for want of prosecution; however, thereafter, no steps have been taken for the purpose of restoration. The plaintiff had filed another suit being Regular Civil Suit no.341 of 2010, against his brother and the Mamlatdar, seeking declaration that the land, is of Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined the joint ownership of the plaintiff and the brother - Ambalal Ishwarbhai Vasava and he shall not transfer it through himself or his agent or the third parties. It is submitted that the suit of the year 2010, came to be withdrawn unconditionally, which is recorded in the order dated 16.10.2010.
3.1 It is submitted that in the plaint, neither is there any reference of Special Civil Suit no.1067 of 2000 nor Regular Civil Suit no.341 of 2010. Without disclosing and suppressing the details of previous suits, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking partition. The suit, not only suffers from the vice of suppression of material facts, but is also barred by limitation. It is submitted that the foundational facts, which go to the root of the matter, if are not disclosed and when there is suppression, the documents produced by the defendant, can be gone into. Had the facts mentioned correctly, the suit would have been dismissed by the Court below, exercising the sou muto powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
3.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Khimjibhai Hirabhai Baraiya vs. Suyash Infracon passed in R/First Appeal no.4756 of 2022. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) Thr. Lrs reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366. It is submitted that the Apex Court has held that 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. If that be so, it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dhaniben D/o Morarbhai Bapubhai Rohit and W/o Parshottambhai Chhotabhai Rohit vs. Rohit Kanubhai Morarbhai reported in 2024(0) AIJEL-HC 249324. It is submitted that this Court opined that when the trial Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined Court finds that the foundational facts themselves were not correctly stated, on the issue of suppression, it can consider the documents of the defendant. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Masrur Fatema Jafarali Saiyed vs. Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel reported in 2016(0) AIJEL-HC 237186. It is submitted that the suit, filed is vexatious and abuse of process of law and is rightly not entertained by the learned Judge and thus, no interference is warranted.
4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the documents made available on the record.
5. Captioned appeal is against the impugned judgment whereby, the suit of the plaintiff, came to be rejected accepting the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code filed by the defendant no.3. Application, is based on Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides the limitation of three years for obtaining any declaration from the date the right to sue first accrued. According to the defendant no.3, the plaintiff, has suppressed relevant material facts, which would be impermissible in the eye of law. Stand taken is that there cannot be a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit. Furthermore, reference is made of the suit filed in the year 2000 and the subsequent suit of the year 2010, and that filing of the suit has been deliberately suppressed by the plaintiff and thus, the suit, is liable to be rejected. The application, as stated hereinabove, came to be accepted and the plaint, came to be rejected by passing the impugned judgment, giving rise to the following points for determination by this Court:
(i) Whether the suit is rightly rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts?, Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined
(ii) Whether the suit is vexatious and abuse of process of law inasmuch as, when the plaintiff is seeking discretionary and equitable remedy, the plaintiff ought to have furnished the foundational facts and having failed to do so, is not entitled for any reliefs?,
6. Before adverting to the points for determination and the impugned judgment, it would be relevant to have a brief idea of the facts involved. The plaintiff claims to be the daughter of deceased Ishwarbhai Abhesinh Vasava, who died on 25.10.1957, leaving behind the wife and three children, one son named Ambalal Ishwarbhai and two daughters named Chanchalben Ishwarbhai (the plaintiff) and Minaxiben Ishwarbhai. The mother, passed away before 30 years and sister - Minaxiben passed away in the year 1970 while the brother - Ambalal Ishwarbhai Vasava passed away on 01.12.2017.
7. It is the case of the plaintiff that for survey nos.543 A & B, the names of the heirs of the protected tenants were entered in the revenue record vide entry no.1650; however, name of the plaintiff was left out, despite she being one of the heirs of Vasava Ishwarbhai Abhesinh. The plaintiff claims that she was not aware about the entries and it was only in the year 2018 when the defendant nos.1 to 4 attempted to sell the land and when the claim of the plaintiff was refused, the plaintiff procured the documents, namely, 7/12 form from the revenue record. The revenue record revealed that the name of the plaintiff has been deleted. It is further the case of the plaintiff that entry no.1650 was challenged before the revenue authorities and both the revenue authorities, in hierarchy, has decided in favour of the plaintiff. When the name was yet to be posted in the revenue record, defendant nos.1 to 4 have executed a registered Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined sale deed dated 25.06.2019 in favour of defendant nos.5 to 6.
8. The case of the plaintiff is that only with a view to nullifying the rights of the plaintiff, the defendant nos.1 to 4, in collusion with defendant nos.5 and 6, have executed the sale deed, who in turn have executed a registered sale deed dated 24.06.2020 in favour of the defendant no.7. Moreover, defendant no.5 for the other parcels of land has executed registered sale deed dated 23.10.2020 in favour of defendant no.8. Further sale deed has been executed by the defendant no.5 dated 11.12.2020 in favour of defendant nos.9 to 11. Defendant no.5 has thereafter, executed three sale deeds, all dated 14.12.2020 in favour of defendant nos.12, 13 and 14 respectively. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed for the relief that the sale deeds executed in succession are not binding upon her and the suit has been filed seeking 1/3rd share in the suit properties.
9. The record produced by the defendant reveals that the plaintiff in the year 2000, had filed Special Civil Suit no.1067 of 2000 before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Savli against her brother - Ambalal Ishwarbhai Vasava. The stand taken is that the brother, has surreptitiously and without any authority, got the properties transferred in his name. In paragraph 6, the plaintiff has clearly stated that she has the share in the immovable properties and be declared as the owner. Order dated 07.11.2017 was passed, transferring the suit from District Court, Baroda to the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Savli. Notices appear to have been issued, since it remained unserved, that order dated 12.04.2018 has been passed below Exh.1, dismissing the Special Civil Suit no.18 of 2017 (old Special Civil Suit no.1067 of 2000). It has been fairly conceded by Mr Muhammadyusuf M. Kharadi, learned advocate that no application has been filed seeking restoration of the Special Civil Suit no.18 of 2017 (old Special Civil Suit no.1067 of 2000).
Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined
10. Furthermore, in the year 2010, the plaintiff, has filed Regular Civil Suit no.341 of 2010 before the Civil Judge, Waghodia, praying for permanent injunction against his brother - Ambalal Ishwarbhai Vasava, restraining him from dealing with the lands bearing survey nos.543/B, 546/A, 542/A/paiki 1, 542/B, 543/A/1 and 543/A/2. Withdrawal purshis was filed by the plaintiff, seeking unconditional withdrawal and Regular Civil Suit no.341 of 2010, has been withdrawn. Therefore, so far as the first suit is concerned, it has been dismissed for want of prosecution in the year 2018 and the second suit, has been withdrawn unconditionally. Plaintiff, was party to both the suits, namely, the first suit of the year 2000 and the second suit of the year 2010; however, for the reasons best known to her, chose not to disclose the details in the present suit which, is inter alia, praying for similar relief of partition and for 1/3rd share in the suit properties.
11. Pertinently, suit seeking specific performance of the contract is discretionary and equitable remedy and it was expected of the plaintiff to have narrated each and every aspect minutely and with clarity, favouring or against the plaintiff. Considering the fact that the provisions of the Code makes it incumbent that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Considering the above obligation, the plaintiff, ought to have offered the narratives of the previous suits, especially when the prayers in the previous suits and the prayer in the present suit, are the same.
12. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to some of the judgments cited by the learned advocates. In the case of Dahiben Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (supra), the Apex Court has considered the aspect of suppression and it has been held and observed that if by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. It has also been observed that 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. Paragraphs 24 to 28 of the said judgment read thus:-
"24. "Cause of action" means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.
24.1 In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam, (2005)10 SCC 51, this Court held :
"24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an 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"
(emphasis supplied).
24.2 In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.9 this Court held that while considering an application under Order VII 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 following words : -
"5. ...The learned Munsiff 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 O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. 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) Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined 24.3 Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, 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.
24.4 If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal11 held 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.
25. The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a time-limit for the institution of all suits, appeals, and applications. Section 2(j) defines the expression "period of limitation" to mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suits, appeals or applications. Section 3 lays down that every suit instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed even though limitation 10 (1998) 2 SCC 170.
26. Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act, prescribe the period of limitation for filing a suit where a declaration is sought, or cancellation of an instrument, or rescission of a contract, which reads as under :
"Description of Period of Time from which
suit limitation period begins to
run
58. To obtain Three When the right to
any other years sue first accrues.
declaration.
59. To cancel or Three When the facts
set aside an years entitling the
instrument or plaintiff to have
decree or for the the instrument or
rescission of a decree cancelled
contract or set aside or the
contract rescinded
first become
known to him."
The period of limitation prescribed under Articles 58 and 59 of the 1963 Act is three years, which commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
27. In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., this Court held that the use of the word 'first' 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 Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined 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 date when the right to sue first accrued.
28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected."
13. Similarly in the case of Masrur Fatema Jafarali Saiyed vs. Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the averments made in the plaint, found that the plaintiff therein had not disclosed the facts before the trial Court and that there was suppression of material facts. The Court, was of the opinion that the plaintiff therein has deliberately not stated the facts and had the plaintiff disclosed the material fact, the suit of the plaintiff, would have been barred by limitation. The Court, while not interfering with the judgment of the Court below, observed that considering the objective of Order VII Rule 11 and if it is found that the suit is barred by limitation, the Court, shall dismiss the same. The Court was also of the opinion that the suit, was nothing, but an abuse of process of law and the suit, was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
14. The judgment in the case of Dhaniben vs. Rohit Kanubhai Morarbhai (supra), is also worth referring to. The Division Bench, concurred with the opinion of the trial Court. The Court, while dismissing the appeal, opined that if the case of the plaintiff is based on false claim on suppression of facts which were material to the issue, the trial Court committed no error in relying on the documents produced by the defendants. Paragraphs 6, 6.1 to 6.3 of Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined the said judgment, are reproduced hereinbelow for the ready reference:
"6 The perusal of the order of the Trial Court would indicate that the Trial Court found that the mutation entries 822 and 823 were recorded in the year 1974 and the suit was filed 45 years after such entries were recorded and if the claim of the plaintiffs was that by such mutation their right was alienated then there was delay in approaching the Court. The Trial Court then on examination of the documents placed by the defendant observed that the documents produced by the defendant indicated that the plaintiffs had already signed a release deed or a deed of relinquishment and merely because their names were entered in the revenue records again on 1.09.2018 gave no fresh lease of life to challenge the deed on the ground that the signatures were forged. The challenge then was clearly an afterthought after having been exposed to the charge of suppression of these documents.
6.1 The plaint when read as a whole in its entirety as it is, does not talk about the foundational facts based on which the Revenue entries 822 and 823 were recorded in the revenue records. The case of the plaintiffs is that such entries were made without their knowledge and when they came to know of it in 2018 did they approach the Court. They have produced the Revenue entries 822 and 823 with the paperbook which were part of the plaint. It is their case that the names of the defendant brothers were recorded in the revenue records for which the plaintiff sisters had not received any notice under Section 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It is at this instance that the defendant no.7 produced its own records which suggested that notices under Section 135D were in fact issued and received by the plaintiff-sisters. A consent letter and statement was made before the Talati- cum-Mantri releasing their rights in the lands in question. Both, statements for lands of Revenue Survey No.822 and 823 are produced before the Trial Court and also are part of the paper book before us. Once this fact was out to the notice of the plaintiff did they then denied having signed such a release deed and the afterthought of producing the handwriting expert's opinion to suggest that the signatures weren't matching.
6.2 The basic foundational facts on which the plaint was based was that it was only in the year 2018 when the sale deed was made that the sisters came to know that this deed was based on revenue entries 822 and 823 made on 27.11.1974 which was done without their knowledge and without the notices under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Moreover, when the order of the Trial Court is read it also records subsequent entries when on 28.2.1989 when entry no.1167 was mutated in the revenue record recording amalgamation of the survey numbers. Entry No.1350 was recorded on 27.6.1997 Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined recording acquisition of some land for the Narmada Canal. On the death of Narsinhbhai, names of the legal heirs of Narsinhbhai were mutated on 28.5.2014. Similarly, on 17.10.2016 Entry No.2291 was made giving effect to the change in surname from Khalpa to Rohit prior to the entry of 23.07.2018 of the sale deed.
6.3 Reliance placed on an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Sood (supra) wherein in Para 5 the Supreme Court has observed that while rejecting a plaint the Court cannot go into the documents produced by the defendants. The observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in context of a plea by the defendant-applicant of Order VII Rule XI on the issue of res-judicata by referring to certain documents. Here, in the facts of the present case when the Trial Court found that the foundational facts themselves were not correctly stated, the Court when found that it was a case of suppression of facts the Court had to consider the documents of the defendant on the issue of suppression made by the plaintiff of the very documents which should have been in his custody. The contention of the Counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. When the case of the plaintiff was based on a false claim on suppression of facts which were material to the issue, the Trial Court committed no error in relying on the documents produced by the defendants. The documents produced by the defendants indicated that notices under Section 135D were issued and acknowledgements were produced. This belied a statement in the plaint that no notices under Section 135-D were received. The case was further exposed to suppression when signed release deeds were placed on record which struck at the plaintiffs' root to further their case for partition of properties. Only when these documents were produced did the plaintiffs come forward then to change track to suggest that the signatures on the release deed was forged."
15. Therefore, when a party approaches the Court seeking discretionary remedy, it is not only under an obligation, but has a bounden duty to ensure that the plaint contains all facts relevant to the issue, stated with precision and in detail. Any omission by the plaintiff in disclosing such facts, especially when the plaintiff is personally privy to those documents and information, it constitutes a clear case of suppression of material facts. In such cases, when the defendant brings relevant documents to the notice of the Court, it would be permissible for the Court to look into the documents and see to it that the attempt on the part of the party to circumvent the Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined adverse order, is nipped in the bud inasmuch as, such an attempt can be said to be misconceived and vexatious, disentitling the plaintiff claiming any relief.
16. The learned Judge, noted that the plaintiff failed to disclose the details of the suit of the years 2000 and 2010. In fact, the plaintiff had herself placed on record the entry nos.513, 1657, 1650, 1689, thereby indicating that she was fully aware of the previous suits. The Court was of the opinion that had the plaintiff disclosed the aspect of the earlier suits, she would not and could not have instituted the present suit. This is because the statutory limitation period of seeking partition is 12 years. The plaintiff's right to sue, if any, had accrued in the year 2000 when the first suit was instituted. Her failure to institute the present suit in the year 2022 rendered the claim of the plaintiff barred by limitation.
17. Learned Judge relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126 wherein, it has been held and observed that 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, i.e. if there are successive violation of the right, it would 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. Paragraph 27 of the said judgment reads thus:
"27. While enacting Article 58 of the 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 between 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 differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued."
18. Pertinently, the ouster of the plaintiff was known to her in the year 2000 itself and hence, the limitation, would start running therefrom. The contention of the learned advocate that Order IX Rule 4, permits the plaintiff to bring fresh suit in the event the previous suit is dismissed for want of prosecution. True, it does give the right to file the fresh suit, but under the guise of filing the fresh suit, it does not give a license to the plaintiff to suppress the foundational facts and raising the ground of presumption as per Order VI Rule 13 of the Code. Hence, the contention of the learned advocate that fresh suit can be filed under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code, does not merit acceptance and is, rejected, so also the contention of Order VI Rule 13.
19. In light of the above discussion, the plaint is rightly rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts; rendering the suit vexatious and abuse of process of law. No error can be said to have been committed by the Court below in rejecting the plaint while exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, warranting interference by this Court.
20. Resultantly, the captioned appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected Civil Application, is also dismissed.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) BINOY B PILLAI Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:49:43 IST 2025