KANJIBHAI BHAGWANJIBHAI PATEL Vs. NANDUBEN SHAMJIBHAI SORATHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of revision applications and are between the same parties, all these revision applications are decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order.

(2.) Civil Revision Application No. 57 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner herein original defendant No.1 challenging the impugned order passed by the learned trial court learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Ex.20 in Regular Civil Suit No.305 of 2010 dtd.29/12/2011, by which the learned trial court has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioner herein original defendant No.1 to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation.

(3.) That the respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein original plaintiffs have preferred the aforesaid respective Regular Civil Suits against the common petitioner Kanjibhai Bhagwanjibhai Patel and respondent No.8 in respective Civil Revision Applications original defendant No.2 in the respective Regular Civil Suits, for a declaration that power of attorney dtd.5/1/1997 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the original defendant No.1, is forged and illegal and to quash the subsequent transactions / sale deeds dtd.12/10/1998 executed by the original defendant No.1, as power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs in favour of the original defendant No.2 and also to declare that they are joint owners/holders of the disputed land bearing Revenue Survey No.95/Paiki admeasuring 7 Acres and 23 Gunthas situated at Village Mahudi, Taluka : Rajkot. The original plaintiffs have also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein original defendant No.2 not to transfer, alienate and/or enter into the aforesaid Survey No.95 Paiki which the defendant No.1 has purchased from the defendant No.1 on the basis of the power of attorney dtd.5/1/1997. That similar suits have been preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein original plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 with respect to different parcels of land. Thus, as such in the aforesaid suits, the original plaintiffs have challenged power of attorney dtd.5/1/1997 alleged to have been executed by the original plaintiffs in favour of the petitioner - original defendant No.1 and registered sale sale deeds dtd.12/10/1998 executed by the original defendant No.1 as power of attorney holder on the basis of the power of attorney dtd.5/1/1997 in favour of the defendant No.2.