PRALHAD Vs. VAIBHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties, heard finally.

(2.) The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred this civil revision application, taking exception to the order of the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalna, below Exhibit-19 in R.C.S. No. 143 of 2021 dtd. 10/12/2021, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 was rejected.

(3.) The present applicants had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (b), (c) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code contending that the plaint averments itself reflect that the suit is barred by limitation. The present applicants had purchased 74 R land on 4/8/1995 from the father of the respondent/plaintiff and put it in possession. The plaintiffs have cleverly created the cause of action by pleading that he got the knowledge of the said sale deed on 20/1/2020. He did not dispute that the plaintiff was minor when the sale deed was executed in his favour. It was also not disputed that the date of birth of the plaintiff was 5/12/1994. So, the plaintiff became major on 5/12/2012. The suit ought to have been filed within three years after attaining the majority. It has also been submitted that earlier, the mother of the plaintiff had filed a suit regarding the same sale transaction against her husband and defendant No. 1. However, the plaintiffs have pleaded in this suit that defendant No. 1 had left the possession of 74 R land in favour of his mother during the said suit; hence did not appear in the said suit. Thereafter, she did not file any suit. The father of the plaintiff died on 12/5/2019. A false cause of action has been pleaded that arose on 2/3/2021. The suit was filed on 4/5/2021. Calculating the age of the applicant, as per his admitted date of birth, he did not file a suit within three years of attaining the majority. The plaint averments itself show that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Secondly, the plaint was sought to be rejected on the ground that the suit was undervalued. The prayer has also been made to reject the plaint under clause (c).