The trial Court also relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme, Court in v. Gunt Raj Reddg and another us. P.Neeradh.a Reddg and otherst, wherein it was obse

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in 0.S.No.11 of 2023 on the file of Princtpal District Judge, Vikarabad District by allowing the Revision. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirsurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour: may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 29111/2024 passed in CRP lio 3711 of 2024 and dismiss the Civil Revision Petition with exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI S M MUBASHIR UDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KOPPULA GOPAL The Court made the following: ORDER THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CwIL REVISION PETITION No.3711 OF 2o24 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under ArLicle 227 of ttre Constitution of India, is frled by the petitioner herein/ defendant No.3, challenging the order, dated 13 -O9.2024 passed in I.A.No.1084 ot 2023 in O.S.No. ll of 2023 by the learned Principal District Judge, Vikarabad (hereinafter referred as "trial Court"), wherein the I.A.No.1084 of 2023 filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to rcject the plaint for want of cause of action and barred by limitation, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner herein is thc dcfcndanL No.3 and the respondents herein are the plaintiifs in thc sr-riL. l{ereinafter, the parties would bc referred as they rvcre arral-cd in tl'rc suit

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs {'iled the suit vide O.S.No.1I ol 2023 on the filc of lcarncd Principal District Judge, Vikarabad, seeking folloning relicti 1) Declaring thdt the platntilfs are tlLe obsolLtte ort,rt('r-s antd titLe holders of the suit schedule prcp?,rtlj. bg uirtue of poreltat inheitance. 2) Declaing that the Sale Deed Docuntetts No 11)S oJ 89 daLed: l8 07.1989 and the subseque,.t .Salc l)e.ed l)ocu,rLt-tLLs ;lo 9O4 of 91 doted: 25-O7-1991 atrl bl6 of l.l d(n..l )-3 A2 -|Ol-t ttrc i[Legol, 2 impersoruated, forged. fabicated and Jraudulent doanments, not enforrre.able under lau cannot be acted upot1, null uoid, and does not bind the plaintrffs. 3i As subsequent relteJ, direct the Registration O.lllce / Reuenue Authontles to cancel / delete the Sale Deed Doanments No. 1428/89 dated: 18 07-1989 qnd 9O4/91 dated: 25 07-1991 and 818/ 13 dated: 23 02-2013 from the Re@stration & t\ncumbrance Records / Books ond ratifA the Reuenue Records a:cord.inglg. 4) And as ancilLary consequential relief of deliuery o_. the possession of the suit schedule propettg to the pLaintifis by ejecting the 3rd defendant, utho is tutuing onlA pdper possessiorl, l^rom the sutt schedule propertA. 5) Award rrtesne profts and (nsts of the suit, os th s ]lon'ble Court deemed fit and proper.

4. During the pendency of the suit, thc defendant No.3 hlecl I.A. No. LO84 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 1 1 r7'w Section 15 1 o[ CPC seeking to rejecL the plaint for want of ca-rsr: ol acLion and barred by limitation. It is stated by the defendan t I'1o.3 that in the plaint, the plaintifls pleaded their father's narre as Mohammed Abdul Sattar S/o. Mohammed Khasim but in the salc cleed vicle documcnt No. 1a28/ 1989 dated 18.07.1989, tl-re name \\ as mentionecl as Abdul Sattar @ Jani Miya. [t is further stated Lhat plaintilfs pleaded that their father has not exectrte,C the sale deed dated 18.07.1989 in lavour of defendant No. i and the sermc r.r'a s forged ancl obtaincd through impersonation ,rn,l as sr-rch all consequenLial sale deeds have to be declared as nu[[ and void ancl not binding on plaintiffs. It is the case of defendan t No.3 that thc cause of action shown by plaintiff is illusory cl-cated u.ith cleve r drafting and the suit is barred by law of limitation arrd ultirnatelv J prayed for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiffs hled counter affidavit through their General Power of Attorney (GPA) opposing the relief claimed by the defendant No.3 contending that the subject I.A.No.1O84 of 2023 is not maintainabie and the same was hled only to drag the matt€r on one pretext or olher and in fact, Abdut Ghani, brother of Mohammed Abdul Sattar ftted O.S.No.1O4l 1996 on the frle of District Munsif Court, Vikarabad, against Mohammed Abdul Sattar and plaintiffs l, 2 aod 4 and the said suit was decreed on 30.03.1990 and sale deed vide document No.l8.O7. 1989 was executed during the pendency of said suit by rvav of forgery and impersonation. It is specific case of plaintiffs that \r,hen there is allegation of fraud, in terms of Section 17(1) of Limitation Act, there cannot be any period of limitation and therefore, the suit was liled within the period of limitation and the application tiled by the defendant No.3 is liable to bc re1ccred. The trial Court after consid€ring the rival contentions of both partics, dismissed the I.A.No.1O84 of 2023 vide impugned order dated

13.09.2024 observing that plaintilfs not only fited suit for declaration but also sought relief of cancellation o[ sale dccd and clelir.cry of possession and consequential au,ard of mesne prohts and cost of the suit. It was also observed b), the trial Court that sofaras limitation aspect is concerned, in Para 8 of the plaint under 4 Item No.V, the plaintiffs have alleged that three s;ale deeds bearing document No.1428/ 1989 dated 18.07.1989 and document No.9O4l199 1 dated 25.07.1991 and document No.ti18/2013 dated

23.02.2013 arc forged, fabricated and created by impersonation and thereforc, not binding on the plaintiffs. The trial Court also relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme, Court in P. V. Gunt Raj Reddg and another us. P.Neeradh.a Reddg and otherst, wherein it was observed that rejection o1'plaint is a step ol drastic nature and while exercising the powers, uLnder Order Vll Rule 1l of CPC only the averments made in thc plaint have [o be rcad as a g,hole and the stand of the deferrdzrnts in written statement or in lhc application for rejection of piaint is wholl1, imn-raterial and that the plaint can be rejected only il the averments made therein ex facie do not disclos;e cause of action 'barred by lau,. The and on a rcacling thcrcof, the suit appears to be trial Cour[ having examined the relevant material and also the suil documenls dismissed the [.A.No.1084 of 2023. lfence the Civil Rcvision Petition.

5. A carcfr-rl exarninaLion of the impugne<I order dated

13.09.2024 g'ould revczrl that the trial Court has considcrcd the averments madc in t l-rc plaint u'hich, pima lfizcia disclose that thc '1:ois1tscc3lr o atteged sale deeds rvhich are subject matter of the suit are said to have been executed by impersonation. It is the case of plaintiffs that their father's name is Mohammed AMul Sattar S/o. Mohammed Khasim and he has not executd the sale deed dated

18.07.1989. Whereas it is the case of the defendant No.3 that in the sale deed dated 18.07. f 989 the name of plaintiffs father is mentioned as Abdul Sattar @ Jani Miya. These issues are mixed question of fact which are required to be adjudicated after full fledged trial.

6. The second ground raised for rejection of plaint is that the plaint is barred by limitation as the suit for cancellation of sale cleed datcd 18.07.1989 and the consequential sale deeds, was instituted nearly after period of 35 years. This ground is required to bc examincd keeping in mind the averments in the plaint and also the allcgations therein that the suit documents are executcd in a fraudulcnt manner. Here, it is apt and appropriatc to extract Scction l7 of the Limitation Act, which reads as follows: ''t-. Lllr..t t,l liLt Ll or nt6take.--(I) Where, inthe case of ary suit or applicLttion fin' thic.h t TLnod of lihit.ttion is presctibed by this Acl,- Lt) the \ or upplic.tt ion is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his ugcttt: rtr th1 tfu kru,',l,:dgc t'f thc right or title on which a suit or dpplicotiotl is louruled i.r unceuletl br the liuutl o.f any such person as aforesaid: or iL) the \tt! ot ,tJ4'lic,ttiott it.fbr relielfrom the consequences nfu nisttrke.- ot 6 (d) where any docuorcnt ,rcce.ssq1r b establish the right o[ the piamiiff or applicant hos been f1-audulentlv concealed [ront hin, the period of limitqtion sl,all not begin to run until the plqintif/ or applicant has discovered thefraud or the nislake or could, with reqsonoble diligence. hat:e dncovered it: or in the cq;e of a concealed document. to il the plaintll or the applicdnt lrst had the meats o,f producing the concealed doarmetl or conpelling ils production: Provided thdt nothin& il this section shall cnable any suit .'o be insliluted ot applicution to be mode to rccover or enforce any charge sgain , or set qside a:ny lransaction d.flecting, onv property w,hich (i) in the case offroud, has been purchased for valuable consid,':ration by a person nho was not d pdrty to the lraud ond did not ot the time of the purchase know, or hot'e reason lo believe, thqt qny fraud hud been commitled, or (ii) in rhe cose of mistake, has heen purchased lor valutble: consideralion subseq a l)' to tle lranseclion m which tlrc mistake w'as made, Ly a person who did not knov,. or hore reason tt, helia,e. thol the olistoke hqd been mode. or (iii) in the cctse of o conccoled document, has been purcl'ased lor vafuable considerdtton h\. a perxn wln v,an not a pori' lo the concedhr'enl and, did not at lhe time of purchose kno\', ot htn'e reoson to belieye, that the ,locttment had been conceqled (2) Il,'here a.jtrclgment-debtor hos, b,,- lroud or force, preventea the exec:ution o/ a decree ctr ortle|x'thin fuc pcriod of linitation, the courl may, ol the application of llrc jwlgnent-e rcdrtor ntudc ofier the exprt of the said period e::tend the periodlor execultott ol thc lecrec rr otder: I'ntwdcd llwl such applicalion is madewithin one yeor frrnt the dote of tltc thsco,,'crt ol thc liatd or the cessation offcrce, cts the case

7. There is a speci[ic allcgation in the plaint that the sale deeds have been executed in irauclulerrl rnanner and irnpersonation. The fraud is a qucsLion ol f.lct, $ hich can be agitated e\/en in collateral proceedings. It is settled proposition of law that a jurdgment, decree or order obtained by ptaving fraud on the Crurt, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and norr est in the eye of law. In view of the specific pleadings in the plaint that lhe suit documents were executed in a fraudulenl manner, Section 17 :f Limitation Act, would come into rescuc of the plaintiffs. The suit instituted seeking multiple reliefs and with a specific allegation of fraud is not liable to be rejected for want of cause of action at the threshold.

8. In S.P.Chengaluaraga Naidu tts. Jagannath and others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that non-disclosure of relevant and material documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud. In the instant case, the allegations in the plaint are that pending adjudication of suit vide O.S.No.104 of 1996, instituted by Abdul Ghani, brother of father of ptaintiffs, the suit document was executed through impersonation. The limitation and fraud would run parallel to each other and the said issues are required to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial.

9. [n Indian Eaangelical lattheron Church Trust Assoctction us. Sri Balq & Co.3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the ta',r, of limitation is an adjective law, containing procedural rules and does not create any right in favour o[ any person, but simply prcscribes that the remedy can be exercised only upto a certain period but not beyond. It was further otrserved that the limitation Act does not confer any substantive right nor defence any right or cause of action. Unless there is a complete cause of action, limitation cannot run and the re cannot be a . _ 11.994) r SCC t '(lol-t) r scR 5lt . t0l5 t\s( il B cornplete cause of action unless there is a per:ion who can sue and a person who can be sued.

10. lrt Central Bank of India and rrnother us, Smt Prabha Jain and otherd., the Hon'ble Suprerne Court obsetwed as under: '24. Euen tf ute uould haue been persuaded to take tle uieu that the third retief i.s banred by Section 17(3) of the SARFAI)SI Ac[ still the plaint must suruiue becouse tlrcre carftot be o partial re,iedion of th.e pldnt under Order VII, Rute 1 1 oJ' lhe CPC- Hence, euen' if one relief suruiues, the ptaint connot be reiected under Order VI', Rule 11 of the CPC. In the case on hand, tlle flrst and seconl relieJ s as praged for are cleorlg not borred bg Section 34 of the SARME,iI ACT and are uithin the ciuil coutT's jurisdiction. Hence, tlrc pLaint conrutt be rejeded under Order VII RuLe 1 1 of the CPC."

11. A careful analysis of above relerrcd judgments would reveal that the power conferrcd under Order VII Rulc 11 of'CPC should be exercised sparingly and onl]-' in rare cases, partic rlarly when a suit alleges multiple reliefs bascd on the claim of fraurl.

12. It is relevant to state tha[ the scope of ieterference under Arncle 227 of the Constitution of [ndia is limite<I. 'Ihe High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdicti<-rn only in cas,es where there is patent illegality, perversiq/, or gross violation oi't1-re principles of natural justice. [n lhe present c:rsc, thcre is no su:h perversity or jurisdictionat error rn thc order passecl bv tht, trial Court. The impugned order is reasoned and does not suller from any legal n lzozsl z scli 16-. - 2ol-i rNS( q j '--::-':'....i.'.l!t...ry:--.- 9 infirmities warranting interference by this court under Artrcre 227 of the consritution o[ India. This civil Revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13 Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. No costs. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL E UTY REGISTRAR 7 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 'I . Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District 2. One CC to SRI S M MUBASHIR UDDIN Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI KOPPULA GOPAL Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SS/PSI HIGH COURT DATED:10 10612025 ORDER CRP.No.3711 o12024 ,/-=' 't 11E q o7 ,,r.1-'\.. r:(. 03 SI:P M f' , \.\ ,:'.\ ': ., t. ,t /t) o L) o ai:l r),,) - .l \ ;/ \C'\ .2 ,,--.'-... DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS ^1--', l-L