MRS MEENA TEVARY Vs. JUGAL KISHORE RATNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the defendant No.1 seeks rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit is barred by limitation and has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fees.

(2.) Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that even as per Para 11 of the plaint it is evident that the defendant No.1 applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House wherein vide order dated 31st July, 2006 and 7th August, 2006 reference is made to the general power of attorney and sale deed. As per the plaint even assuming that the plaintiffs did not have knowledge of the alleged forgery and fabrication when the FIR was got registered on 22nd July, 2006 they had sufficient knowledge and evidence of the alleged forgery on 31st July, 2006 and 7th August, 2006. The present suit was instituted on 22nd September, 2009 i.e. much beyond the period of limitation of three years. Even in the plaint in Para 27 the plaintiffs have alleged that the cause of action for filing the suit firstly arose on 21st July, 2006 and taking the case of the plaintiffs as it is the suit was filed beyond three years of the cause of action. The complainant in FIR No. 860/2006 under Section 380/457/34 IPC registered at PS Malviya Nagar, i.e. the plaintiff No.1has duly mentioned the facts of forgery and fraud played upon her. Even during the hearing of bail application learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1/complainant was present and thus the plaintiffs had due knowledge of the facts. Further the defendant No.1 filed a civil suit being CS(OS) No. 1688/2006 wherein the plaintiff No.1 filed a written statement on 8th September, 2006 allegedly claiming the documents to be forged. Thus, even taking the said date as the date of knowledge the present suit is barred by limitation. From the documents filed by the plaintiffs, it is evident that the suit is barred by limitation. Since the plaintiffs are claiming the relief of declaration of the general power of attorney and sale deed to be forged and fabricated, as per Article 56 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation to file a suit to declare the forgery of an instrument issued or registered is three years and the time from which the period begins to run is when the forgery becomes known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff No.1 was a witness to GPA dated 26th September, 2005 but in any event the GPA and sale deed were in her knowledge on 21 st July, 2006/ 22nd July, 2006 when the FIR was got registered, on 7th August, 2006 when she filed a complaint with the Home Minister and further on 8th September, 2006 when she filed the written statement in the suit filed by the defendant. As per Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act the period of limitation is three years and the time from which period begins to run is when the right to sue first accrues. The right to sue for the first time accrued to the plaintiffs as per their own case on 21st July, 2006 when the FIR was lodged and thereafter when the defendant No.1 filed the suit bearing number CS(OS) 1688/2006. Reliance is placed on Secretary, Ministry of Works & Housing, Govt. of India & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh Jagdev & Ors., 1996 6 SCC 229; Fakharooddeen Mahomed Ashan Vs. Pogose & Ors., 1879 4 ILR(Cal) 210; State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Balkaran Singh, 2006 12 SCC 709; Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., 2011 9 SCC 126; N.V. Srinivasa Murthy & Ors. Vs. Mariyamma (Dead) by proposed LRs & Ors., 2005 5 SCC 548; Mohan Lal Bhatnagar Vs. Kamlesh Kumari Bhatnagar & Ors., 2011 185 DLT 394 and Satya Prakash Gupta & Anr. Vs. Vikas Gupta & Ors. RFA (OS) 23/2010 decided by this Court on 24th November, 2011. It is well settled that in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC even if the defendant's documents/ pleadings are not required to be looked into, the documents filed along with the plaint can be looked into and can be read along with the averments made in the plaint. Reliance is placed on Mac Associates Vs. SP Singh Chandel & Anr., 2013 3 AD(Del) 1 and T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Anr., 1977 4 SCC 467. Further the plaint is liable to be rejected also on the ground that the plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit for the purposes of Court fees and have not paid proper Court fees. The valuation of the reliefs for the purposes of Court fees is not the same as is given for the purposes of jurisdiction, contrary to Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. Hence the plaint be rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ non-applicant on the other hand contends that a holistic and meaningful reading of the plaint would show that the present suit filed on 22nd September, 2009 was well within the period of limitation. The plaintiff has clearly stated in the plaint that only after 25th September, 2006 the plaintiff No.2 and her husband took steps and enquired as to how the documents have been forged and fabricated and thus appeared through an advocate and requested time for filing written statement vide order dated 4th October, 2006 in CS(OS) 1688/2006. It is well settled that at this stage only the averments made in the plaint are required to be seen and not the defence of the defendant. The plaint has to be read by way of demurrer believing the averments stated in the plaint to be true and correct.