1. By way of present Civil Revision Application, the original defendant Nos. 4 to 6 have challenged the order below Exh. 12 in Special Civil Suit No. 208 of 2008, by which, the application filed by the present applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed on 18.6.2009 by the learned 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara.
2. The brief facts emerges from the records is that present opponent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a Special Civil Suit No. 208 of 2008 in the Court of Learned additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara against the applicants as well as present opponent Nos. 3 to 5 and prayed for decree for declaration qua sale deeds dates 21.06.2004 executed between the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and present applicants i.e. original defendant Nos. 4 to 6. It is further prayed that original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have obtained consent of the plaintiffs by fraud for executing the sale deeds. It is further prayed that the decree be passed directing original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs since the amount of consideration has already been paid to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the present applicants i.e. original defendant Nos. 4 to 6 not to sell or transfer the suit property to any other person.
3. The present applicants – original defendant Nos. 4 to 6 made application at Exh. 12 under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed to return the plaint since the suit was barred by the Law of Limitation. It is contended in the said application that the sale deeds, which have been challenged in the suit, were executed between the original landlords i.e. opponent Nos. 4 and 5 (defendant Nos. 2 and 3) and present applicants i.e. original defendant Nos. 4 to 6 on 21.6.2012, in which the original plaintiffs had, as confirming party, put their signatures. If any, fraud as alleged by the original plaintiffs is committed by the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years, that means, being the confirming party in the said sale deeds, the Plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit on or before 21.6.2007, however, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on 19.5.2008 i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation of three years as provided under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have accepted the application and returned the plaint as far as the present applicants are concerned. The said application was opposed by the original plaintiffs and after hearing the parties, the learned 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, by order dated 18.6.2009, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision application.
4. I have heard Mr. Jigar P. Raval, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 -
original plaintiffs, Mr. Nilesh Pandya learned advocate for Haresh Patel, learned advocate appearing for opponent No. 3 and Mr. Tejas Barot, learned advocate for opponent No. 4 and 5 – original defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
5. Mr. Raval, learned advocate has taken me through the plaint itself and submitted that the plaintiffs have admitted that when the disputed property was sold by original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to the present applicants, the plaintiffs gave consented for the sale and put their signatures as a confirming party in the sale deeds. The allegations in the plaint are made against the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 that they did not pay any amount to the plaintiffs, though assurance was given by them. It has been alleged by the Plaintiffs that the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have committed fraud and not the present applicants. He has submitted that it has been pleaded that the plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- between 15.11.2003 and 28.2.2004, the amount of consideration to the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3, for the same property has not been referred in the sale deeds. It is further submitted that additional amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was paid by the original plaintiffs to the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 30.6.2004. It is alleged that the said amount is also not returned by the property owners i.e. original defendant Nos. 2 and 3. He submits that all the allegations are levelled against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and not against the present applicants. Applicants are not concerned with the same. If the said deeds dated 21.06.2004 are perused, it appears that the Plaintiffs are party to the said transactions, which took place between original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and the present applicants. The present applicants have paid the entire amount of consideration as per the details provided thereon, but nothing has been mentioned in the sale deeds about the transaction, which is alleged to have been taken place between the original plaintiffs as well as original defendant Nos. 2 and 3, from whom the present applicants have purchased the suit property. It is further submitted that the present applicants have not received any notice from the plaintiffs about the so-called dispute between the Plaintiffs and the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and called upon the applicants to perform the act, which they are required to do. In fact, there is no transaction between the plaintiffs and the present applicants before or after the date of execution of the sale deeds, which took place on 21.6.2004. He submits that it is an admitted position that the suit was filed on 19.5.2008 i.e. admittedly after three
an instructions or decree or for the rescission of a contract, period of limitation is three years. Time from which period begins when the facts entitling the plaintiffs to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or rescinded the contract first becomes known to him. As per his submissions, in the present case, that the plaintiffs were aware of the transacting property, which has been sold by original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to the present applicants on 21.6.2004 and in absence of subsequent events, from which the plaintiffs can establish that they came to know about the fraud, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit on or before 20.6.2007. Further, in the present case the suit is filed on 19.5.2008 i.e. after the prescribed period of limitation provided under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by opining that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, therefore, the application was not maintainable.
5.1. In support of his submission, Mr Raval, learned advocate has relied upon the judgement of Kamlesh Babu and Ors. V. Lajpar Rai Sharma and Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 577. In Para 22 and 23 of the judgement, by which the Apex Court has observed that the Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure casts a mandate upon the Court to reject a plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law including law of limitation. He has submitted that it has also been observed by the Apex Court that certain questions relating to the jurisdiction of a Court, including limitation, goes to the very root of the Court's jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter.
5.2. Another judgement relied upon is of Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. V. Hede And Company reported in 2007(5) SCC 614 and submitted that the Apex Court in Para – 25 of the said judgement observed that the plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation only when the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. He submits that on reading, the entire plaint does not disclose about the so-called fraud committed either of the present applicant or by original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and that on what date he came to know about the fraud having been committed by the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3. When the plaintiffs were aware about the transactions which took place on 21.6.2004, it was the duty of the plaintiffs to narrate about the knowledge of alleged fraud having been committed by either of the defendants in the suit proceedings. He submits that since the suit is clearly time barred, the Trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint as far as the applicants are concerned.
5.3. Mr. Raval, learned advocate has relied upon the judgement of State of Gujarat V. Gangaben Polabhai reported in 2007 (2) GLR 921. This Court made observations in Para 13 that it appears from the pleadings that the suit is filed beyond limitation, plaint can be returned at pre-trial stage. He submitted that on plain reading of the plaint, it makes it clear that in the present case, trial is not necessary and therefore, the application at Exh. 12 may be considered and the same may be allowed.
6. On the other hand, Mr. A.M.Dagli, learned advocate appearing for original plaintiffs – present opponent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application by elaborate reasons that the disputes between the parties are fraud and question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, no interference is necessary by exercising the revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has submitted that the Plaintiffs became a confirming party in the sale deeds on the assurance given by the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore, consented for the sale of the property in favour of the present applicants. Since the amount was not paid by the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 till the date of filing of the suit, cause of action continued till filing of the suit. He would submit that even till today original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have not paid the amount agreed between the plaintiffs and the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Since the suit property has been sold to the present applicants i.e. original defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and when the prayer is made to pass decree declaring the disputed sale deeds as null and void, the cause of action has arisen against the present applicants. He further submits that since the action or inaction on the part of the original defendant Nos.
2 and 3 that they have not paid the agreed amount, it is a continuous cause of action and therefore, the suit is not time barred as argued by the advocate for the applicants.
6.1. Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the Opponent No. 2 has, in support of his submissions, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Balsara Construction Pvt. Ltd. V. Hanuman Seva Traust reported in 2006(5) SCC 8658. By relying upon Para 8 of the said judgement, he submitted that the question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court does not require any interference.
6.2. Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kamala & Ors. V K.T.Eshwarasa & Ors. Reported in 2008(12) SCC 661. By relying upon Para 21 & 22 of the said judgement, he submitted that, for the purpose of invoking the Order & Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure no amount of the evidence can be looked at the issues on merits of the matter, which may arise between the parties would not be within a realm of the Court at this stage. In support of his submissions that by leading evidence of the parties the knowledge of Court can be brought on record and only thereafter the period of limitation can be decided.
6.3. Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 has relied upon Popat & Kotecha Property V. State Bank of India Staff Association reported in 2005 (7) SCC 510. He submitted in in Para – 14 of the said judgement deals with Order – 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by which the Court has power to reject the plaint. It is held by the Apex Court that the meaning of reading of the plaint is necessary to decide the case under provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6.4. Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 has relied upon C. Natrajan V. Ashim Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 363. By relying upon Para – 7 of the judgement, Mr. Dagli submitted that the Court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defendants.
application.
8. Mr. Nilesh Pandya, appearing for opponent No. 3, learned advocate has nothing to submit and similarly original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. opponent Nos. 4 and 5 who have been represented by Mr. Tejas Barot has also not argued the matter.
9. Having gone through all the judgements relied upon by both the parties, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court is that, if the contention has been raised about the suit barred by any law, consequent thereto return of plaint as provided under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code, when comes before the Court, the same shall be decided only from the averments made in the plaint itself. Considering Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, there cannot be any addition or substraction equally it is a mandate upon the Court to reject the plaint whether the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law including by the Law of Limitation. The Court has to find out whether Order 7 Clause – (d) of the Rule 11 is applicable or not only after reading the plaint as a whole. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage assess and to read it out of context in isolation.
10. Equally, it is held by the Apex Court that after reading of plaint, if the Court finds that it is a mixed question of fact and law, the plaint shall not be returned under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, if, the plaint in the present case is perused, as a whole, in context with the law and limitation, it is an admitted position that when the sale deeds were executed on 21.6.2004 between the present applicants i.e. original defendant Nos.
4 to 5 – original land owners i.e. original defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiffs were parties to those sale deeds. They were aware about the transaction which took place between the present applicants and original land owners. It is not the case of the plaintiffs in the entire plaint that either present applicants or original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. land owners committed fraud on particular date by not paying the consideration agreed between the original land owners i.e. defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and the plaintiffs. The sale deeds did not disclose such transactions which have been taken place between them or any act which is required to be carried out either by the applicants or by the original land owners. In absence of the averments with regards to any notice issued either to present applicants or original defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the arguments advanced by Mr. Dagli for opponent Nos. 1 and 2 about the cause of action, that it continues till the amount of consideration is not paid, is not acceptable. Even after the sale deeds which have been executed on 21.6.2004, the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 9,00,000/- to the original land owners on 30.6.2004. The plaintiffs have not come forward by pleading anything in the plaint about the said transaction though, the property was sold by the original land owners to the applicants on 21.6.2004. The plaintiffs have neither pleaded about any notice issued and served upon either to the present applicants or original land owners calling upon them to act in according with any understanding or any other documents. On asking about issuance of such notice it was replied that, the plaintiffs have not issued any notice to the present applicants with regard to the transaction which took place on 21.6.2004 between the applicants and all other parties, who are before the Trial Court as well as before this Court.
11. In case of Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. V. Hede And Company (supra), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 25 as under :
“25. The language of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is quite clear and unambiguous. The plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation only where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Mr. Nariman did not dispute that “law” within the meaning of clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 must include the law of limitation as well. It is well settled that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is essentially a question of fact, but whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is whether the averments made in the plaint, if taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed. The averments made in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of the Order 7 is applicable. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition and substraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. As observed earlier, the language of clause (d) is quite but if any authority is required, one may usefully refer to the judgements of this Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. V. M.V.Sea Success I and Popat and Kotecha Property V. State Bank of India Staff Assn.
12. By relying upon the judgement of Popat & Kotecha Property V. State Bank of India Staff Association (Supra), which has been relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant. If considered, the case relied upon by Mr. Dagli, in the first case of Balsara Construction Pvt. Ltd. V.
Hanuman Seva Traust (Supra), the Apex Court in the said case held, after reading the plaint as a whole, that it was the case in which mixed question of law and facts were involved for deciding the question of limitation. The facts of the case involved in that case totally different a the facts of the present case. In case of Kamala & Ors. V K.T.Eshwarasa & Ors. (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Dagli, is also laid down the law that only plaint should be read with in its entirity. In the case of C. Natrajan V. Ashim Bai (supra) relied upon by Mr. Dagli again laid down the law that whether the suit is barred by limitation, is upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Para 7 reads as under :
“7. An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the Court would not be entitled to consider the case of defence. {see Popat and Kotech Property V. State Bank of India Staff Association[(2005) 7 SCC 510].
13. As stated herein above, the entire plaint does not bring the case of the plaintiffs within the period prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore, I am of the opinion that, the learned Judge has committed error in holding that the present case involved mixed question of law and facts. As far as the limitation is concerned, the suit filed against the present applicants is time barred and, therefore, the case squarely covers the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the present Revision Application deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 18.6.2009 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Exh. 12 in Special Civil Suit No. 208 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application at Exh. 12 filed by the present applicant is hereby allowed and the plaint qua the present applicant shall be treated as rejected. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) *kazi