R.C. Keval Chand vs Sujatha & Ors

H.P. Sandesh, J

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.01.2023 passed on I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the same is barred by law.

The Trial Court, having considered the grounds urged in the application, in Para No.9 held that, question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and it requires a trial, particularly when plaintiff is alleging the collusion between defendant Nos.1 to 11 in creating sale deed and they came to know the same recently. The limitation would start after attaining the majority, if the sale deed has not been challenged and the same is also a matter of trial.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in coming to such a conclusion that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. No doubt, the counsel would contend that sale was made in the year 1995, the suit was filed in the year 2020 and whether the suit is barred by law or not has to be considered, while considering the matter on merits, after giving an opportunity and the Court cannot invoke Order VII, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. at the threshold and the same not comes within the purview of Order VII, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and if the suit is barred by law, the Court can consider the same on merits.

With regard to law of limitation is concerned, the matter requires trial and the Court has to consider both mixed question of law and facts. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing such an order and the very contention of the petitioner that suit itself is barred by law is kept open for the consideration by the Trial Court.

With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.