RISHI PAL Vs. RAJBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant no.1 challenges the order dtd. 25/10/2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 CPC for rejection of plaint was partly allowed to the extent that the plaintiff was asked to fix the ad valorem court fee on the market value. However, on the issue of limitation, the trial Court held that it was a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, without appraisal of the evidence, limitation could not be determined. It is against this later portion, the petitioner-defendant no.1 is aggrieved.

(2.) The suit filed by respondent no.1-Rajbir was for declaration declaring the agreement to sell dtd. 6/4/2009 and GPA of even date and compromise deed Ex. C1 as null and void and for permanent injunction.

(3.) The allegations were that the loan had been taken from the present petitioner and in such circumstances, the signatures had been obtained on blank papers. The matter had been settled by way of compromise interse the petitioner and his brother Raj Kumar. The present petitioner-Rishi Pal had filed a civil suit against him through the GPA and defendant no.2 had appeared before the Court and arrived at a settlement and gave compromise statement due to which a fraud had been committed as such. The application is accordingly filed that the suit which had been filed on 15/1/2016 (Annexure P/5) was barred by limitation as the award was of 15/2/2012.