Madhya Pradesh High Court
Navneet vs Smt. Anita on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516
1 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
CIVIL REVISION No. 171 of 2026
NAVNEET AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. ANITA AND OTHERS
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned senor counsel with Shri Surendra Mohan
Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned senior counsel with Shri Ajit Kumar Jain,
learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3.
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8, 9, 10, 11. Shri Manish Sankhla, learned Government advocate for the respondent No. 15.
AND CIVIL REVISION No. 172 of 2026 NAVNEET AND OTHERS Versus SANTOSH BAI AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned senor counsel with Shri Surendra Mohan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6.
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 11, 12, 13, 14.
Shri Manish Sankhla, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 18.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 2 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 C.R. No. 171/2026 reserved on : 16/03/2026 C.R. No. 172/2026 reserved on : 17/03/2026 Pronounced on : 23/03/2026 C.R. No. 171/2026
I.A. No. 3137/2026 has been filed on behalf of the applicants for taking additional documents on record.
On due consideration, application is allowed.
I.A. No. 3192/2026 has been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 8 to 11 for taking additional documents on record.
On due consideration, applications are allowed.
Also heard on I.A. No. 3138/2026 which is an application for ignoring defects filed by the applicants.
On due consideration, IA is allowed. Defects are ignored. C.R. No. 172/2026 I.A. No. 3139/2026 has been filed on behalf of the applicants for taking additional documents on record.
On due consideration, application is allowed.
I.A. No. 3191/2026 has been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 11 to 14 for taking additional documents on record. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 3 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 On due consideration, applications are allowed.
Also heard on I.A. No. 3140/2026 which is an application for ignoring defects filed by the applicants.
On due consideration, IA is allowed. Defects are ignored. With the consent of the parties, matters are heard finally.
01) Having regard to the similitude of controversy involved in both the Revision Petitions, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. Since the facts of the cases are almost identical, therefore, they have been taken from Civil Revision No. 171/2026.
02) This revision has been preferred by the petitioners (defendants No. 12 & 13 in the Civil Suit) against the impugned order dated 05-02-2026 passed in RCSA/767/2025 on application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short hereinafter referred as 'the CPC') whereby application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed.
03) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein have filed Civil Suit No. RCSA/767/2025 before the District Judge, Indore for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property which is agricultural land bearing survey No. 82/2 and 84, total area 11.951 Hectare, situated in Village - Bihadiya, Tehsil & District - Indore Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 4 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 (M.P.). The plaint allegations are that the suit lands originally belonged to one Ramchandra Puranik, who vide registered sale-deed dated 02-01-1981 sold the said land to one Surendra Singh Thakur, who was the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs i.e. husband of respondents No.1 Smt. Anita and father of respondent No.2 and 3 Amit Singh and Sumit Singh. It is also averred in the plaint that purchaser Surendra Singh Thakur did not get his name mutated in revenue records over the suit land because he had no knowledge of law, but plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3 are in possession of the suit land. The respondent No.8 Nandkishore and his brother deceased Harinarayan Patidar, husband of respondent No 9 Smt. Shivkanya and father of respondent No 10 to respondent No.12, got their name mutated in the revenue records on the basis of a decree passed in the Civil Suit No.103-A/1992 dated 15-07-1993 against the legal representative of Ramchandra Puranik i.e. present respondents Nos. 4 to
7. Nandkishore Patidar (respondent No.8 herein) and legal representatives of Harinarayan Patidar i.e. present respondent No.10 to 12, sold the suit land to present applicants. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the respondent No.8 and his brother late Harinarayan Patidar executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 13 Subhas S/o Chandrasenrao Jagirdar, who executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 14 M/s. Ashirvad Sky Heights Towers Private Limited in the year 2008. The sale deed was challenged by respondent No. 8 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 5 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 and his Late brother Harinarayan and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 04-03-2024. It is also pleaded that the respondents No.1 to 3, i.e. plaintiffs before the trial Court, were not made party to the said suit and when this decree dated 04.03.2024 was challenged before the High Court in First Appeal No. 498/2024, parties entered into a compromise and a decree was passed based on said compromise and thereafter the land was sold to present applicants. It is further averred that on 07-06-2025, the present applicants and respondents No.8 to 12 tried to dispossess / respondent No.1 to 3, therefore, they filed the aforesaid Civil Suit No. RCSA/767/2025.
04) Applicants, who were defendants No.12 and 13 before the Trial Court, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint mainly on the ground that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and secondly, the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiffs were never recorded as Bhumiswamis of the land in question and they were not in possession of the suit property, therefore, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed after 45 years of alleged sale deed dated 02.01.1981 in their favour is barred by limitation.
05) Learned senior counsel Shri Veer Kumar Jain appearing for the applicants submits that the plaintiffs are not in possession over the disputed property firstly on the ground that their names have never been mutated in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 6 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 revenue records and secondly, they have not filed any document to show that they were performing agricultural activities, over the aforesaid lands. He has argued that a farmer needs chemical fertilizers, seeds and other goods for cultivating the land and without the Rin pustika or Khasra entries, he cannot get these things. He further submits that the plaintiffs have not even filed original sale-deed or copy of the original sale-deed. The sale-deed dated 02-01-1981 is a forged document which is evident from the fact that only a photocopy of a certified copy is produced before the Trial Court wherein there are neither signatures of sub-registrar nor signatures of the witnesses are present and also the most importantly mark of thumb impression of executor on the aforesaid sale deed is missing. Learned senior counsel further submits that in connected Civil case the name of purchasers in sale deed dated 4/1/1980 should have been mentioned in the boundaries of the disputed lands, but it is not there. On these grounds, learned further submits that the sale deeds are forged one and there is no existence of original sale deeds, hence suits based on these forged/non existing documents are not maintainable. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Sub-Registrar himself has lodged an FIR No. 83/2025 at Police Station - Pandarinath, Indore (M.P.) involving as many as 20 sale-deeds and in those 20 sale-deeds, the sale-deeds filed in both the suits i.e. RCSA/767/2025 and RCSA/768/2025 are included with one more sale-deed which has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 7 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 executed in favour of Surendra Singh Thakur. It was also argued that the present applicants applied under Right to Information Act before the Registrar for obtaining copy of the sale deeds, where it has been informed to the applicants that the sale-deeds of year 1980 and 1981 as mentioned hereinabove were not found registered in their record on registration number mentioned in the sale-deeds and there is entry of lease document executed by the Indore Municipal Corporation in favor of some person on the registration number mentioned in the sale deeds.
06) Learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent No. 3 Sumit Singh Thakur is a habitual offender and as many as five cases of forgery of documents are registered against him in various police stations which relates to the antecedents of this respondent, but the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 by the applicants is based only on absence of real cause of action and bar of limitation in the aforesaid suits. It has also been argued that the suit is barred by limitation and just by mentioning some dates in the plaint and by some clever drafting a time barred suit cannot be allowed to continue. The suit is based on an illusory cause of action and not the real one. The suit is hopelessly time barred and liable to be rejected at the very outset to save the judicial time of the court. Learned senior counsel further submits that though the plaintiffs in the plaint have pleaded that names of the respondent No.8 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 8 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 his deceased brother Harinarayan were recorded on the strength of a decree of the Civil Court and mere pleading of fraud without any basis thereof being specifically pleaded, will not bring the suit within the limitation period.
07) Learned senior counsel referring to Section 117 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (For short herein after will be referred as 'MPLRC') has argued that all the entries made in the revenue records are presumed to be correct unless contrary is proved. He further submits that the plaintiffs have not filed a single document along with the plaint to show that they are/were in possession of the suit land at any point of time and the plaintiffs have not prayed for relief of possession, therefore, the suit filed merely for the relief of declaration and injunction is not maintainable and the same is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (For short herein after will be referred as 'Act'). He further submits that Shri Amit Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 had earlier appeared for respondents No.10 and 11 in F.A. 498/2024 before the High Court, therefore, he cannot appear in this case against the interests of Respondents No. 10 and 11 i.e. Mr. Subhash Jagirdar and M/s. Ashirwad Sky Heights Tower Pvt. Ltd.
08) Learned senior counsel for the applicants to buttress his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] and he has also placed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 9 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 reliance on judgments of Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706],ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [(1989) 2 SCC 163], [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174], C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K Senthil Reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 822 and Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 366. On these miscellaneous submissions, learned senior counsel contends that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the contentions in its right perspective and thereby rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint which is bad in law and also resulted in failure of trial court in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it to reject the plaint lacking real cause of action and also barred by limitation, hence urges this court for allowing the present Civil Revisions by setting aside the impugned order and rejecting the plaints and dismissing suits at the very outset.
09) Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No 8 to 11 supported the applicants and submitted that the names of respondent No 8 Nandkishor Patidar and his brother Late Harinarayan Patidar are recorded as Bhumiswamis in revenue records since 1993 and they were cultivating the suit land even prior to 1993 and they were in actual possession Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 10 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 of the suit property until the execution of sale deed in favour of the applicants. He further submits that the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs in both the cases are forged documents and Sub-Registrar himself has lodged an FIR in respect of those sale deeds on the basis of which both the suits have been filed. In other respects, he has supported case of applicants as argued by his counsel. On these submissions, he prays for allowing the Civil Revisions by setting aside the impugned orders and rejecting the plaints in both the suits.
10) Per contra, Shri Amit Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of for the Plaintiffs/ Respondent No 1 to 3 submits that interests of respondent no 1 to 3, whom he is representing have no conflicting interests with respondent no 10 and 11 in the case therefore he will continue with case. Learned Counsel further submits that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as the question of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law. He further submits that while deciding the application under order VII Rule 11 CPC, only plaint allegations can be looked into and all the averments made in the plaint are presumed to be true on their face value. He has also submitted that on a bare reading of the plaint it will be seen that the suit is within limitation and not barred by any law. Learned senior counsel further submits that in the Civil Suit No. 103A/1992 which was decreed on 15-07-1993, Late Surendra Singh Thakur was not made Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 11 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 a party and the plaintiffs got the knowledge of all these facts only after Corona pandemic was over in the of year 2020-2021, therefore, the limitation for filing of the suit will start from the date of knowledge and the suit is well within limitation. For this purpose, learned senior counsel has invited attention of this Court towards paragraph 20 of the plaint, Annexure P/2, wherein different dates where from cause of action arose has been mentioned.
11) Learned senior counsel further argued that scope of Section 115 of the CPC is very limited and any person claiming that the Court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it only then power under Section 115 of the Limitation Act can be used. Mere error of law or fact, even if one exists cannot be corrected by using the revisional powers as provided under Section 115 of CPC. He further submits that Court has to make a meaningful reading of the plaint and not just formal reading. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in P. Kumarakurubaran vs. P.Narayan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 509, D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company (P) Ltd. (1969) 3 SCC 807, New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh & Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 807, para 23.12 and 23.13 of the judgment passed in Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 366. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 12 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ibrahim vs. Smt. Sharifan AIR P&H 25 and Bharat Singh Kanchansingh vs. Kunwar Singh Hari Singh & Anr. 1993 M.P.L.J. 547. On these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the revision petitions as devoid of any substance.
12) Learned counsel Shri Maqbool Ahmad Mansoori appearing in Civil Revision No.172/2026 on behalf of non-applicants No. 1 to 6 (original plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. RCSA 768/2025) has supported and adopted the arguments of senior advocate Shri Amit Agrawal (who appeared for the respondents No. 1 to 3 in C.R. 171/2026) and also submits that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC as neither the suit is barred by law of limitation or any other law nor it is based on an illusory cause of action. Shri Mansoori has referred relevant paras of the plaint in both the suits where cause of action has been mentioned. He further submits that bare perusal of the plaint averment clearly reflects that plaintiffs have acquired knowledge of the fraud played by the defendants with them in the mutation proceedings initiated by them before the Revenue Courts. He further submits that defendants have come up with a stand by way of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that the plaintiffs were having prior knowledge of the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants, may be a possible defense of the defendants/applicants which Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 13 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 cannot be gone into while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The issue as to whether the plaintiffs had prior notice or reason to be aware about the transactions at an earlier point of time or whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge is credible, are matters that necessarily require appreciation of evidence and at the preliminary stage, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true. In the instant case, issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily as it is a mixed question of law and fact as held by the trial Court. Similarly, the question as to when the plaintiffs gained knowledge of fraud with them is a factual dispute and it also requires evidence. Therefore, rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation without permitting the parties to lead evidence, is legally unsustainable. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in vs. P. Kumarakurubaran vs. P.Narayan 2025 SCC Online SC 975, Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors. (2021) 17 SCC 100 and Chhotanben & Anr. Vs. Kirtibhai Jalkrushanabhai Thakkar & Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 422. Learned counsel further submits that it is well settled that both in authority and law that an adverse mutation entry in revenue records simplicitor without actual and effective threat of invasion would not set period of limitation running under Article 58 of Limitation Act and for this purpose, the plaintiffs are placing Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 14 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 reliance upon a judgment by coordinate Bench of this Court in Bharat Singh vs. Kunwar Singh, 1993 MPLJ 547. He has also placed reliance on para 23.12 of Dahiben (supra). He further relying on P. Kumarakurubaran (supra) submits that plaint averments required to be seen on their face value without going into the veracity thereof as plaint should be assumed to be true. On these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the revision petitions as devoid of any substance.
13) Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar and perused the record.
14) Before entering into merits of the objection of applicants regarding learned Sr. Counsel Shri Amit Agrawal's propriety in representing plaintiffs/ respondent No 1 to 3 against the interests of respondent No.10 and 11 is concerned, it was brought to the notice of the Sr. Counsel and left to his conscience to decide to continue with the case or to abstain from it, but he chose to continue representing respondent No 1 to 3 saying that there is no conflict of interest, hence no finding in this regard is being given by this court.
15) It is not res integra that only plaint allegations and documents filed along with plaint are to be seen for deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Written statement or defence of the defendants cannot be referred. Para 21, 22, 23 & 25 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 15 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 case of Kamala & others v. KT Eshwara SA and Ors (2008)12 SCC 661 is reproduced as under:-
"21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another.
22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision.
23. The principles of res judicata, when attracted, would bar another suit in view of Section 12 of the Code. The question involving a mixed question of law and fact which may require not only examination of the plaint but also other evidence and the order passed in the earlier suit may be taken up either as a preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but, the said question cannot be determined at that stage.
24. The decisions rendered by this Court as also by various High Courts are not uniform in this behalf. But, then the broad principle which can be culled out therefrom is that the court at that stage would not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law. In the event, the jurisdiction of the court is found to be barred by any law, meaning thereby, the subject-matter thereof, the application for rejection of plaint should be entertained.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 16 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026
25. It is one thing to say that the averments made in the plaint on their face discloses no cause of action, but it is another thing to say that although the same discloses a cause of action, the same is barred by a law."
16) The similar view has been taken in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra,(2003) 1 SCC 557 the Supreme Court also observed that it is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what need to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. Relevant para 9 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 17 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects."
Thus, in the instant case it is to be seen whether purposeful reading of plaint allegation and documents annexed thereto reveal any actual cause of action and whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or by any other law.
17) From perusal of copy of the sale deeds dated 02.01.1981 and 04.01.1980 which are basis of the Civil Suits No. RCSA 767/2025 and RCSA 768/2025 filed by the plaintiffs, it is apparent that there is absence of signatures of the witnesses and signatures of the sub registrar and thumb impression of executors on the sale deeds. This point has been raised on behalf of the applicants and no satisfactory explanation has been advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs in this regard. This Court is also not oblivious of the fact that revenue entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer title, but at the same time the revenue entries are prima facie proof of possession over the lands. In the instant case, no document has been filed along with the plaint to prima facie show that at any point of time in last 45 years plaintiffs were in the possession of the suit lands. There are only bald allegations in this regard. No explanation has been offered by the plaintiffs in this regard as to why for near about 45 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 18 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 years they failed to mutate their names in revenue records. The factum of lodging FIR No.83/2025 before the Police Station Pandharinath Indore by the sub- registrar Indore in which sale deed of the plaintiffs which is the basis of the suit is also included, has also not been denied by the respondent No.1 to 3 (plaintiffs). In the aforementioned factual matrix, lodging of FIR by the Registrar itself becomes very important to put sale deeds under suspicion, which are basis of the aforesaid Civil Suits filed by the plaintiffs. Respondents No. 8 to 12 are admittedly recorded Bhumiswamis since 1993 and their title flows through the decree dated 15.07.1993 passed by 12 th Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 103A/1992 which was filed against respondents No.4 to 7, who are legal representatives of original title holder of the disputed lands i.e. Ramchandra Puranik.
18) Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a suit to obtain any declaration must be instituted within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Plaintiffs right to sue for declaration of title through alleged sale deeds dated 02.01.1981 and 04.01.1980. Three years period has passed long back from the date of execution of the aforesaid sale deeds. Civil Suits have been filed admittedly in the year 2025, near about 41 years beyond the prescribed period of limitation. This is apparent from the plaintiffs' own averments of the plaint and requires no evidence for its determination. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 19 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026
19) Respondents have argued that the Plaintiffs gained knowledge of the alleged fraud at the end of the year 2021 when the COVID-19 pandemic was over and that limitation, therefore, runs from the date of such knowledge under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963. To appreciate the controversy S. 17 of Limitation Act is reproduced as under:-
"17. Effect of fraud or mistake.--(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,--
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him;
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it, or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which--
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 20 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed. (2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order:
Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be."
20) From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision this plea is not acceptable as Section 17 of the Limitation Act postpones limitation in cases of fraud only when the plaintiff discovers the fraud or when with the exercise of reasonable due diligence, have discovered it. The decree in Civil Suit No. 103-
A/1992 was passed on 15-07-1993 and the consequent mutation of Patidar family as Bhumiswamis was entered in the public revenue records of Village Bihadiya, which is in public domain and are open to inspection for all and sundry at any point of time. Similarly, a party claiming title over the disputed agricultural land since 1980-1981 is conclusively presumed to have had constructive notice of a court decree and revenue entries which were in the public domain since 1993. The failure to take any step to discover or challenge the decree passed in 1993 for over thirty years is wholly inconsistent with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 21 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 exercise of due diligence. Further, the fraud plea in the plaint lacks the specific particulars required by law. There are no particulars as to who, when or by what means fraud was committed and a bare and unparticularized allegation of fraud is insufficient to attract the benefit of Section 17 as held by the Apex Court in para 18 to 21 of judgment in Santosh Devi v. Sunder, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1808. Relevant para graphs are reproduced as under:-
"17. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the Courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed document is a registered sale deed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has signed the sale deed. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below:
"27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption."
(Emphasis supplied) In view thereof, in the present case, the initial onus was on the plaintiff, who had challenged the sale deed.
18. When fraud is alleged against the defendant, it is an acknowledged rule of pleading that the plaintiff must set forth the particulars of the fraud which he alleges. In the present case, fraud is alleged as a ground upon which the plaintiff justifies the institution of the suit long after the expiry of the period normally allowed for the institution of the suit. Though no specific reference to the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, „the Limitation Act‟) is made in the plaint, it is manifest that the pleading proceeds upon the hypothesis that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 22 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 plaintiff had also contributed along with the defendant in the purchase of the subject property and at the time of the sale, the plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the sale consideration. In other words, the fraud was played upon the plaintiff to sign the sale deed and thereby transfer the subject property. The requirement of Order VII Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, are clear. It is necessary that the plaint should show the ground upon which the exemption from the normal period of limitation is claimed. The question is whether the plaint in this case fulfils the requirements of law. As observed by Lord Selborne in Walling Ford v. Mutul Society, [L.R.] 5 App. Cas. 685:
"With regard to fraud, if there be any principle which is perfectly well settled, it is that general allegations however strong be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice."
19. It is not the mere use of general words such as „fraud‟ that can serve as the foundation for the plea. Such expressions are quite ineffective to give the legal basis in the absence of particular statements of fact which alone can furnish the requisite basis for the action.
20. Order VII Rule 6 uses the words "the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed". The exemption provided under Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act are based on certain facts and events. Section 17, with which we are concerned, provides for a fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain facts.
21. The matter can also be looked at from a different angle. Assuming for the moment that the defendant was a party to the fraud as alleged relating to the sale transaction, whether the same by itself is sufficient to save limitation under Section 17 of the Limitation Act. We are of the opinion that the fraud relating to the sale transaction as alleged itself would not help the plaintiff in getting over the plea of limitation in this case. As already discussed, under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff should have been kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by means of fraud. We are of the opinion that the alleged fraud relating to the sale transaction itself has nothing to do with the question viz., that the plaintiff had been kept out of knowledge Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 23 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 of his right to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed because of fraud."
In the light of the aforesaid, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit of Section 17 of the Limitation Act.
21) In the instant case, it is not an issue whether the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 103-A/1992 binds the Plaintiffs, but the question before this Court is whether the plaint averments disclose the cause of action and the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the reliefs claimed is within period of limitation. Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Dahiben (supra) which has been relied upon by all the parties, it has been held that the documents filed with the plaint can be seen at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Counsel for the applicants have vehemently argued that the plaintiffs have forged the sale deeds and they have filed only photocopies of the certified copies and original sale deed is not in existence which is coupled with the fact that it does not bear signatures of the witnesses and sub-registrar and most importantly it does not bear the thumb impression of the executor of the alleged sale deed. It is not the case of the respondent No. 1 to 3 (plaintiffs) that the original sale deeds have been lost or destroyed but during entire course of arguments the respondent No.1 1 to 3 (plaintiffs) never stated that they have the original sale deed and they also did not offer to produce the original sale deed before the court. The point raised has remained unrebutted during course of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 24 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 arguments. Original of the aforesaid sale deeds has not been filed. This conduct of the plaintiffs create serious doubt and gives strength to the arguments of the applicants that actually there is no sale deed in existence as plaintiffs rely upon. These deficiencies are patent from the plaintiffs' own document. The documents lacking these fundamental requirements of valid execution and registration cannot support a cause of action for filing the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. That apart as mentioned herein above, at the cost of repetition, it is observed that plaintiffs have not filed a single document to establish their possession over the suit land for more than 45 years as alleged in the plaint and, therefore, some bald averments made here and there in the plaint regarding possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land without any supporting documents will not create any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs to file the suit. As held by the Apex Court in ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [(1989) 2 SCC 163], what cause of action means has been held in para 12 which is reproduced as under:-
"12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 25 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defense which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff."
22) Counsel for the Respondents referring para-20 of the plaint has argued regarding cause of action that the plaintiffs got the knowledge of all the facts in the year 2022-23 when they obtained the copies of revenue entries. The plaintiffs have not filed that part of certified copy of sale deeds which reveal that on what date application for obtaining certified copy was filed and when it was delivered to the party which could have revealed the actual date of knowledge of the plaintiffs with regard to revenue entries which has been suppressed. Plaintiffs have not averred in the plaint that how they got the copy of the revenue record and what was the occasion for obtaining the copies in the year 2022-2023 and why they never tried to obtain the copies earlier in the previous 40 years. Such types of pleadings are only to create illusion and does not give rise to any real cause of action. Hon'ble Apex Court in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 has held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 26 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. In case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 : 1977 SCC OnLine SC 286 at page 470 also the Apex has emphasized that irresponsible law suits should be nipped in bud. Relevant paragraph 5 runs as under:-
"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful -- not formal -- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:
"It is dangerous to be too good."
23) In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that cause of action stated in entire plaint is not real, but it is illusory cause of action which is the result of clever drafting only. Plaintiffs/respondents Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 27 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 No. 1 to 3 have not substantiated the pleadings with any supportive document even to prima facie satisfy the Court that they have any real cause of action for filing the aforesaid suit. In para 23.6 of Dahiben (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is duty cast on the Court while adjudicating the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. Similarly In the matter of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs Charity Commr reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code.
24) If the suits filed by the plaintiffs are allowed to continue it will definitely be a wastage of valuable judicial time. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1986 AIR 1253 has observed the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 28 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words :
"12. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."
25) It has been further argued on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs that limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act does not run from the date of the document but only from the date of actual denial or invasion of right, relying on Bharat Singh Kanchansingh vs. Kunwar Singh Hari Singh (1993 MPLJ 547). This argument, in the specific facts of this case, does not advance the plaintiffs' cause. Even accepting that limitation runs from the date of actual denial, the decree in Civil Suit No. 103-A/1992 passed on 15-07-1993 and the consequent mutation of Respondents No. 8 to 12 as Bhumiswamis in public revenue records constituted an open, public and notorious assertion of title adverse to the Plaintiffs since 1993. This Court has already held, for the reasons stated herein above, that the Plaintiffs are conclusively presumed to have had constructive notice of this public decree and mutation from 1993. Accordingly, even on the Bharat Singh formulation, the cause of action at best accrued in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 29 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 1993 when the adverse claim became public knowledge therefore filing the suit filed in 2025 thirty-two years is barred by limitation. There is no legitimate explanation for not mutating their names for good 45 years and never going through the revenue records for such a long period. The argument therefore does not assist the plaintiffs. So far as the other Judgments relied on by the counsel for respondents/plaintiffs are concern they also do not help them as this court after a very careful perusal of the plaint allegations and documents filed with the plaint has arrived at the conclusion that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the same is also barred by law of limitation. There is not a single document on record to substantiate the pleadings made in the plaint. The cause of action is just an illusory cause of action and not real one. The suit is also hopelessly barred by limitation as suit is filed after more than 44 years of execution of alleged sale deed.
26) In case of Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 703 at page 203 in similar factual matrix as in the instant case, a suit challanging family partition of year 1968 the trial court, considering the facts, allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC and dismissed the suit, finding no cause of action for filing the suit. However, the appellate court found that there were triable issues that required consideration. The appellate court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had a legitimate claim over the joint Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 30 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 family properties, and in the absence of any notice to the plaintiffs regarding the partition, the suit was remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration. Hon'ble Apex Court restored dismissal of the suit. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-
"11. The sole argument advanced by the respondent-plaintiffs is that the suit was only for partition, filed in the year 2023 and was within the limitation period as the limitation will be counted from the date of their knowledge of the sale deed. However, upon examining the pleadings before the trial court and the appellate court, it is evident that the plaintiff failed to address the crucial question of when they became aware of the registered sale deeds. If they had prior knowledge of the sale deeds, they failed to specify the exact date of such knowledge. Additionally, the pleadings suggest suppression of essential facts by the plaintiffs.
12. In the case at hand, partition took place way back in the year 1968, which is evident from the revenue record entries. The suit is filed in the year 2023 i.e. after a period of 55 years. Further, many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on perusal it is observed that these were in fact registered sale deeds.
13. A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2012) 169 Comp Cas 133 : (2012) 340 ITR 1] held as under : (SCC pp. 664-65, para 15) "15. ... „17. ... Registration of a document [when it is required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered instrument] [Ed. : Section 3 Explanation I TPA, reads as follows:"S. 3 Expln. I--Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 31 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration...."(emphasis supplied)]] gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed.
18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.‟ [Ed. : As observed in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (1) v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363, pp. 367-68, paras 17-18.] "
14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-defendants, Mr Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle [Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 32 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle, (2024) 15 SCC 675 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844] to substantiate the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. It was observed as follows : (SCC paras 22 & 25) "22. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by court auction and registered in the first instance and when another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, comes into operation. The possession, in the present case, also has been rested with the appellant before several decades, which operates as notice of title. ...
23.-24. ***
25. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts below have held that the question of the suit being barred by limitation can be decided at the time of trial as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Though the question of limitation generally is mixed question of law and facts, when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court can come to a conclusion that under the given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11."
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-defendants, Mr Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle [Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle, (2024) 15 SCC 675 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844] to substantiate the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. It was observed as follows : (SCC paras 22 & 25) "22. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by court auction and registered in the first instance and when another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date of registration 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. ...
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 33 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026
23.-24. ***
25. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts below have held that the question of the suit being barred by limitation can be decided at the time of trial as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Though the question of limitation generally is mixed question of law and facts, when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court can come to a conclusion that under the given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11."
16. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] , this Court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11CPC : (SCC pp. 178-79, para 7) "7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 34 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage."
17. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali [Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 128] , it is stated as under : (SCC p. 377, para 23) "23. ... 23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted."
18. In our considered opinion, the trial court had rightly allowed the application of the appellant-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the matter to the trial court.
19. The suit was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 8-1-2025 [Anand Kumar v. Chandrashekhar P.M., 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 8] passed by the High Court is set aside, and both these appeals are hereby allowed."
27) In view of Article 58 & 59 of Schedule appended to Limitation Act, 1963 and in conjunction with meaningful reading of the plaint averments and the documents filed therewith, this Court is of the considered view that plaint does not disclose any real cause of action and the suit is manifestly barred by limitation.
28) Since the arguments advanced on behalf of Shri Amit Agrawal, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 35 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori also relate to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the instant Civil Revisions, therefore, these arguments are also required to be dealt with. Learned senior counsel has argued relying upon the judgment passed in D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi (supra) that revisional jurisdiction is very limited and in the instant case even if there is any error of fact or error of law that cannot be corrected by invoking the aforesaid jurisdiction. Aforesaid arguments have been countered by the counsel for the applicants on the ground that in the instant case learned trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to reject the plaint after its meaningful reading which apparently shows that plaintiffs' case is based on illusory cause of action which is result of clever drafting, therefore, in my considered opinion the Trial Court has erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it, to reject the plaint therefore, this revision is maintainable. If the arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs are taken on their face value, there will be no case where revisional jurisdiction can be invoked. In view of the above this court is of considered opinion that this is the fit case for exercising powers under section 115 of the Code as the Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.
29) From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that limit of revisional jurisdiction has been traversed by the Apex Court. Even from the plain reading Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 36 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 of Section 115 of CPC, it is clear that revisional Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction where it appears that Subordinate Court: (a) have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, rival submissions have been advanced by the parties with regard to impugned order, therefore, it cannot be said that revisional jurisdiction is not invokable in the instant case.
30) Accordingly, in the instant case it has been found that plaintiffs have never been in the possession of the suit land which they have averred as no supportive document is annexed with the plaint and it has also been found that by way of clever drafting, point of limitation has been unsuccessfully tried to be defeated, therefore, contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiffs that in the instant case there is no point which touches the jurisdictional error committed by the court below in rejecting application of applicants filed under Order 7 R 11, is not sustainable and arguments advanced in this behalf by the plaintiffs side are discarded.
31) So far as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are concerned, they do not help the plaintiffs as no real cause of action could be pointed out coupled with the fact that plaint has also been found to be barred by law of limitation. It is also observed that the suit is also barred Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 37 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as plaintiffs have not claimed any relief of possession over the disputed property and they have not even prima facie been found in possession of the suit lands. In the aforesaid circumstances, the law laid down in the judgment of P. Kumarakurubaran (supra) is also of no avail as the averments made in the plaint in the instant case do not disclose any real cause of action.
32) It is no inflexible rule that the point of limitation is always a mixed question of fact and law and plaint cannot be rejected. Where bar of limitation is clearly and undisputedly ascertainable from the averments of the plaint as in the instant case, the same can be rejected. In case of much celebrated judgment in Dahiben (supra), Court rejected the plaint on the ground as it was clearly made out from the averments of the plaint that it is barred by limitation.
33) Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that in the instant case, it has been found that illusion of cause of action is created to frustrate the point of limitation, whereas there was no actual cause of action to file the suits and the suits for the reliefs claimed were barred by limitation.
34) Resultantly, both the Civil Revisions having substance, succeed and are hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 passed in RCSA 767/2025 and RCSA 768/2025 by the X District Judge, Indore is hereby set aside. Applications filed by the applicants under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7516 38 C.R. Nos. 171/2026 & 172/2026 before the Trial Court in both the suits are allowed and the plaint(s) filed in both the suits i.e. Civil Suit No. RCSA 767/2025 and RCSA 768/2025 before X District Judge, Indore deserve to be and are hereby rejected entailing dismissal of aforementioned suits.
No order as to costs.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Soumya Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 23-03-2026 13:01:05