RANCHI, India, June 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 6:

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present civil revision has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Deoghar in M.C.A. No. 337 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No. 68 of 2015 wherein Misc. Application No. 337 of 2022 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., by the petitioner (defendant in Title Suit No. 68 of 2015) was rejected without passing any reasoned order.

2. It is further submitted that as per contents of plaint itself at paragraph no. 22, the relief sought for by the plaintiff, it is explicit that the suit is hopelessly time barred. The plaintiff in the garb of cancellation of the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the defendant No.1 (petitioner herein) has deliberately asked relief for declaring the sale-deed to be forged document and not binding upon him apart from declaration of title and possession.

3. It is further submitted that the learned court below has recorded no reasons for not entertaining the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. except that it has been filed at a belated stage when issues have been settled and case is pending for evidence of witness and one plaintiff's witness has also been examined.

4. Apparently, the learned Trial Court has not recorded any reasons for rejecting the above miscellaneous application. Therefore, impugned order may be set aside and this revision application may be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon reported judgment in Geetha & Ors. Versus Nanjundaswamy & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties opposing the aforesaid contentions submitted that the plaintiff (opposite parties herein) has asked simple relief in the suit for declaring the sale-deed purported to be executed by one Mandakini Devi in favour of Ashok Kumar Jha through registered sale-deed No. 463 Volume No. 18, Page No. 211 to 242 dated 01.03.2011 to be declared as forged, bogus, fabricated, inoperative and non-enforceable under law. A declaration is also sought for declaring the sale-deed to be illegal & void and not affecting the interest of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no relief for cancellation of the sale-deed for which limitation period is prescribed to be three years from the date of knowledge.

7. It is further submitted that at present, in the original suit, the evidence of plaintiff has been concluded and case is pending for evidence of defendant and the defendant has also examined two witnesses. This revision application is pending since three years and now the suit is at the fag end of its conclusion.

8. Moreover, the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and an issue has also been framed in this regard in the original suit. Therefore, present revision petition is fit to be dismissed.

9. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned order in the light of rival submissions of the parties as discussed above.

10.From the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is quite obvious that according to him, the suit was filed for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 01.03.2011, executed in favour of the defendant No.1. It is admitted in the plaint that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 04.05.2012, after 15 days from death of said Mandakini Devi, when the defendant started shouting that he has purchased her land but the plaint was affidavited on 05.05.2015 and thereafter, the suit was instituted.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfLYZUkGYZHHG7j4JHnrqLgfSG%2FL5xORF5o86aKw8ywai&caseno=C.R./40/2022&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010408922022&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.