SURESH KUMAR DAGLAversusSARWAN & ANR.

                  [2014) 7 S.C.R. 1105


                  SURESH KUMAR DAGLA                               A
                               v.
                      SARWAN & ANR.
              (Civil Appeal No. 6363 OF 2014)
                      AUGUST 26, 2014
                                                                    B
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND ·
                S. A. BOBDE, JJ.]

      Suit for declaration: Limitation - Delay of 14 years in filing
suit - Suit for declaration of title and for declaration that the C
sale deed dated 30th November, 1992 was null and void filed
by first respondent on 28th June, 2006 - First respondent had
already instituted a complaint of cheating regarding purchase
of suit land which was rejected on 30th November 1993 -
Held: Suit is barred by limitation as first respondent had D
knowledge about the sale deed as back as in the month of
1993 - Also, first respondent cannot derive benefit in terms
of s. 257 of Chhatisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -
Application by appellant u/Or. 7 r. 11 rlw s. 151 allowed - Suit
dismissed.                                                           E

     On 30th November, 1992, the first respondent
executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant · ·
and his father in respect of certain land and received the
consideration. Subsequently, the first respondent filed a
complaint before the District Judge against the appel,lant F
alleging that the appellant had cheated him regarding the
purchase of the suit land. The complaint was found to be
false and dismissed on 30th November, 1993. After 14
years, on 28th June, 2006, the first respondent flied a suit
against the appellant and his father seeking declaration G
of title and for declaring the sale deed dated 30th
November, 1992 as null and void. The first respondent


                              1105                                  H
    1106    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A also filed application for condonation of delay which "'.'as
  dismissed.

       The appellant filed applications under Order 7 Rule
  11 r/w section 151, CPC and under section 257 of the
  Chhatisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 raising objections
8
  as to maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation.
  The trial court dismissed the applications which decision
  was upheld by the High Court. The instant appeal was
  fil~d challenging the order of the High Court.

C       Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD: As per paragraph 4 of the copy of the plaint,
  the case of the first respondent was that the appellant has
  succeeded in registration of the sale deed in favour of
0 himself by inducing the first respondent to believe that
  he will be executing the sale deed in favour of the State
  and the State will pay the consideration which is not paid
  till filing of the civil suit and has not taken possession.
  Therein at paragraph 17 it was stated that cause of action
E arose in the month of August, 2006. The High Court
  noticed that paragraph 17 of the plain was cryptic but
  observed that it would not be possible for the Court to
  infer that the first respondent was h.aving knowledge
  about the alleged deed prior to August, 2006. The first
  respondent did not dispute the fact that he had already
F instituted a case alleging therein that the appellant inter
  alia cheated him while purchasing the said land which
  was rejected on 30th September, 1993. From th~ said
  fact, it is clear that the first respondent had knowledge
  about the sale deed and as back as in the month of
G September, 1993. Therefore, the suit is barred by
   limitation and thereby first respondent cannot derive any
   benefit in terms of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land
   Revenue Code, 1959. The application filed by the
   appellant under order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of
H
        SU RESH KUMAR DAG LA v. SARWAN                       1107


 the CPC is allowed and the suit is dismissed as barred               A
lby limitation. [Paras 8 to 11] [1109-F-H; 1110-A-D]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6363 of 2014.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2012 of the              B
High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Civil Revision ·No. 120
of 2012

    · Ravindra Shrivastava, Kunal Verma for the Appellant.
                                                                      G
     Vikrant Singh Sais, Yogesh Tiwari for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal
has been preferred by the appellant-defendant no.1 against the        D
order dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the High Court
of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Civil Revision No.120 of 2012. By
the impugned order, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's
order dated 23rd June, 2012 refusing to allow the application
filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section        E
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as,
"the CPC") for dismissal of suit on the ground_ that the suit is
barred under the law and thereby dismissed the civil revision
application.

     2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:                 F

      The 1st respo!1dent executed a registered sale deed dated
 30th November, 1992 in favour of the appellant and his father
 in respect of land admeasuring 0.64 acres in Khasra No.445;
 land admeasuring 1. 71 acres in Khasra No.625; land                  G
·admeasuring 0.42 acres in Khasra No.575; land admeasuring
 0.22 acres in Khasra No.576 of agricultural land situated in
 Village Sakri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur after receiving
 consideration for an amount of Rs:2,72,000/-. Subsequently, the
  1st respondent-plaintiff filed a complaint before the District      H
    1108     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 7 S.C.R.


A   Judge, Bilaspur against the appellant-defendant intero alia
    alleging that. the appellant has committed cheating regarding
    the purchase of the suit land owned15y the plaintiff. On such
    complaint, the matter was referred to Lokayukt and upon
    preliminary inquiry by the Lokayukt a criminal case (Special
s   Case No.07/1999) was registered against the appellant under
    Sections 420, 467,468,471 and 120 B IPC read with Section
    12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the said
    complaint, the 1st respondent alleged that the sale deed was
    obtained fraudulently. Additional Sessions Judge (Special
c   Judge), Bilaspur dismissed the complaint on 30th November,
    1993 by recording a finding that a false complaint has been
    lodged by the 1st respondent against the appellant.

           3. According to the appellant, after more than 14 years on
    28th June, 2006 the 1st respondent filed a Civil Suit No.12A/
D   06 (renumbered as Civil Suit No.53A of 2011) against the
    appellant and his father seeking declaration of title and for
    declaring the sale deed dated 30th November, 1992 as null and
    void. No reason was shown therein as to why the civil suit was
    filed after delay of 14 years of execution of the sale deed. In
E   the suit, the 1st respondent admitted that he had filed the
    complaint against the appellant. The appellant filed his written
    submission on 28th July, 2007 and categorically raised an
    objection regarding relief for declaration of sale deed as null
    and void being barred by limitation. Thereafter, the 1st
F   respondent filed an application under Section 5 of the
    Limitation Act on 22nd November, 2007 stating that
    inadvertently he was pursuing the criminal proceeding being an
    illiterate villager he did not initiate a civil proceeding. However,
    as the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not
G   maintainable in the suit the 1st respondent did not press the
    application and on 22nd January, 2008 the same was
    dismissed as not pressed.

        4. The appellant filed three applications under Order 7 Rule
    11 read with Section 151 CPC and under Section 257 of the
H
        SU RESH KUMAR DAGLA v. SARWAN                        1109
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 raising preliminary              A
objections with regard to maintainability of the civil suit. It was
contended that the suit was barred by limitation and hence was
liable to be dismissed.

     5. The Fourth Civil Judge, Class-1, Bilaspur by order dated      8
23rd June, 2012 in Civil Suit No.53-A/2011 dismissed the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC
and the said order was upheld by the High Court by the
impugned order.

     6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant C
submits that the allegation made by the 1st re~pondent in
paragraph 4 of the plaint makes it clear that the alleged sale
deed dated 30th November, 1992 was to his knowledge but
the 1st respondent filed the civil suit on 28th August, 2006 after
lapse of 14 years which is much beyond 3 years of limitation D
for filing suit for declaration in terms of Article 56 of the
Limitation Act. Therefore, the suit was time barred and there·
is no provision for extension of time.

    7. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the 1st           E
respondent, the suit is not barred in terms of Section 257 of
the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1957.

     8. We have noticed the rival contentions made on behalf
of the parties and perused the record. As per paragraph 4 of
the copy of the plaint, the case of 1st respondent is that the        F.
appellant has succeeded in registration of the sale deed in
favour of himself by inducing the 1st respondent to believe that
he will be executing the sale deed in favour of the State and
the State will pay the consideration which is not paid till filing
of the civil suit and has not taken possession. Therein at            G
paragraph 17 it is stated that cause of action arose in the month
of August, 2006. The High Court noticed that paragraph 17 of
the plaint is cryptic but observed that it would not be possible
for the Court to infer that the 1st respondent was having
knowledge about the alleged deed prior to August, 2006.               H
    1110      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A       9. The 1st respondent has not disputed the fact that he had
  already instituted a case alleging therein that the appellant inter
  alia cheated him while purchasing the said land which was
  rejected on 30th September, 1993. From the aforesaid fact, it
  is clear that the 1st respondent had knowledge about the sale
B deed and as back as in the month of September, 1993.

       10. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the suit was
  barred by limitation and thereby 1st respondent cannot derive
  any benefit in terms of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land
C Revenue Code, 1959.

        11. For the reasons aforesaid, ~e set aside the order
  dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the High Court of
  Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Civil Revision No.120 of 2012; order
  dated 23rd June, 2012 passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Class-
D 1, Bil?spur in Civil Suit No.53-A/2011, allow the application fileq
  by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151
  of the CPC and dismiss the suit as barred by limitation. The
  appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation. No costs.

E   Devika Gujral                                      Appeal allowed.