SHYAM TIWARI Vs. AMBIT NAVNIRMAN PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, hereinafter will be referred to as 'CPC') has been preferred against impugned order 8/11/2025 (Annexure A/1) in regular civil suit bearing number RCS-A/1208/2019 passed by learned XVIII Civil Judge Senior Divsion, Indore District Indore (MP) on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejecting the plaint, whereby the same has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/company registered under the Companies Act has filed a suit for declaration that registered sale deed dtd. 10/3/1981 (Annexure A/6), sale deed dtd. 3/1/2003 (Annexure A/7), sale deed dtd. 27/4/2015 (Annexure A/8), sale deed dtd. 30/3/2015 (Annexure A/9), sale deed dtd. 15/1/2015 (Annexure A/10) and sale deed dtd. 1/10/2014 (Annexure A/11) are not binding on the respondent/plaintiff and defendants/respondents herein do not get any title of the disputed property over the suit lands, therefore, their possession over the aforesaid lands is legal and plaintiffs are entitled for recovering possession from the defendants. Further relief of injunction is also claimed that defendants be restrained from transferring or executing any agreement or creating any encumbrance or changing the nature of the suit lands bearing survey No. 989/1/1, part Rakba 0.065 hectare i.e. 7000 square feet, survey No. 989/1/1, part Rakba 0.074 hectare i.e. 8000 square feet and survey No. 989/1/1 part rakba 0.139 hectare i.e. 15000 square feet, total area 0.278 hectare i.e. 30000 square feet situated at Tehsil and District Indore. Plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 herein has averred in the plaint that he has purchased the suit land through registered sale deed No. 873 dtd. 30/9/2009 (Annexure A/1), sale deed No. 2096 dtd. 31/3/2009 (Annexure A/2) and sale deed No. 47 dtd. 3/4/2008 (Annexure A/3). It is further alleged that original owners of the disputed lands were other persons including Didarsingh S/o Parmeshwar Singh, seller to the plaintiff. After purchasing lands vide order dtd. 17/10/1985 passed in Revenue Case No. 1/v-3/1985-86, the partition was effected. Diarsingh S/o Parmeshwar Singh got total 5 survey numbers, Rakba admeasuring 1.376 hectare. The said partition has not been questioned before any Court. In the revenue records, plaintiff's name is recorded as land owner. Defendants/petitioners before this Court have alleged their possession over the disputed property. When plaintiff had a conversation with the petitioners in this regard, it came to his knowledge that in the year 1981, Smt. Ravinder Kaur and Mahinder Kaur has executed a sale deed, but both of them were not having any right to transfer the property. In 1981, deceased Sharad Tiwari has unauthorizedly purchased the land and thereby he did not get any right over the property. After coming into knowledge of the plaintiff, he filed the aforesaid Civil Suit for the reliefs as mentioned herein above. After filing of the Civil Suit, the petitioners/defendants No. 2 to 7 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC on 10/8/2023 for rejecting the plaint inter alia on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent and the same has been rejected by impugned order dtd. 8/11/2025 which is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that order passed by the Court below is cryptic laconic and is not a speaking order supported by any reasons. Factual aspects have not been considered by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order. Civil Suit has been filed for declaring the sale deed dtd. 10/3/1981 as null and void after 38 years of execution of the sale deed which is apparently barred by limitation. Learned counsel further submits that learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the averments made by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in his plaint in relation to cause of action. Learned Court below has failed to consider the fact that order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was in the year 2016 and not in the year 2018. Wrong facts have been taken into account to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner.