JAGBIR SINGH Vs. ROSHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 6/12/2021 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak vide which the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC') for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

(2.) The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were entitled to get their share in the ancestral property described in the plaint and that the Civil Court Decree dtd. 4/8/1993 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent entries in the revenue record were illegal, null and void. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from alienating the disputed land was also sought. The respondents-plaintiffs were the widow and daughter of one Randhir Singh whereas the petitioner-defendant Jagbir Singh is the father of Randhir Singh. Randhir Singh expired in 1999 after which the respondents-plaintiffs inherited the share of Randhir Singh from his ancestral/coparcenary property alongwith the petitioner-defendant. In April 2019, they approached the Patwari of the area for obtaining copies of the revenue record. It was at this point of time that they came to know that the petitioner-defendant had obtained a Civil Court Decree dtd. 4/8/1993 alleged to have been suffered by Randhir Singh in his favour, leading to the filing of the Civil Suit.

(3.) An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-3) was filed by the petitioner-defendant for rejection of plaint primarily on the ground of limitation stating that the decree had been passed in favour of the petitioner-defendant in 1993 whereas the suit had been filed in the year 2019 i.e 26 years after the passing of the decree.