This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4
aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in I.A. No.683 of 2021 in
O.S .No.135 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga
Reddy District for dismissing the petition filed by him to reject the plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC.
2. Heard Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-
defendant No.4 and Ms. A. Sunitha, learned counsel representing Smt. N.
Malathi Naidu, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent
Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of
possession and declaration of registered sale deeds bearing document
Nos.763 of 1991, 371 of 1993 and 2067 of 2010 as not binding upon them
and for rectification of revenue records from the year 1996-1997 till date.
After receiving the summons, plaint and documents, the petitioner herein
filed a petition under Order-VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC to reject the
plaint on the grounds that there was no cause of action for the suit and that
the suit was barred by limitation. The plaint was cleverly drafted seeking a
Dr.GRR,J
relief that the registered sale deed documents were not binding on the
plaintiffs instead of seeking the relief for cancellation of those documents
knowing well that if the said prayer was made, it would squarely be barred
by limitation. As per Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act, the time
prescribed for seeking for declaration and cancellation of any document
was three years from the date of execution. The initial document executed
by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was a registered sale deed
document No.763 of 1991. It was not only an ancient document, but also a
document conferring rights in favour of vendees nearly three decades back.
If at all the same was sought to be cancelled, the suit ought to be instituted
in the year 1994 itself but it was filed in the year 2021 i.e. nearly 27 years
after expiry of the period of limitation. For filing the suit seeking the said
relief by clever drafting, the plaintiffs contended that they came to know
about the documents only in the year 2020, when the defendant No.4 filed
the suit O.S No.211 of 2020, which was a false and baseless allegation
made only to cover up the limitation aspect and to bring the suit within the
limitation.
[ad_1]
Source link