IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2243 of 2007 1. SURESH SINGH 2. Triloki Singh 3. Jugesh Singh 4. Ramlok Singh 5. Sheolok Singh All are sons of Late Ranjit Singh 6. Bindu Kuer @ Bindu Widow of Late Kamlesh Singh 7. Jully 8. Lovely 7 and 8 are minor daughters of Late Kamlesh Singh and are under the guardianship of their Mother bindu Kuer @ Bindu 9. Ashok Singh Son of Late Ranjit Singh All are resident of village Kaithi, P.S. Obra, District – Aurangabad ….. Defendants … Petitioners Versus 1. AWADH BIHARI ROY, son of Late Jagu Roy @ Jagnarain Roy, R/o village Pipara, P.S. Karhgar, District Rohtas, at preset R/o Kaithi, P.s. Obra, District Aurangabad …. Plaintiff …. Opposite Party 2. Daully D/o Late Kamlesh Singh R/o Kaithi, P.S. Obra, District Aurangabad ….Defendant ….. Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate ---------- 2 09.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the defendants- petitioners. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the Munsif, Aurangabad in Title Suit No. 115 of 2006, whereby the prayer for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule - 2 - 11(d)) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) has been rejected. Learned counsel confined himself to only one point for consideration at the time of hearing that from bare perusal of the plaint the suit seems to be barred by law of limitation and as such the court below should have rejected the same under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. The plaint of concerned Title Suit No. 115 of 2006 has been brought on record as Annexure 3 to this application. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards the averments made in paragraph 7 of the plaint wherein it is stated that the father of plaintiff Jagnarain Roy died on 7.6.1966 and at that time the plaintiff was a minor of 12 years of age. It is submitted that this coupled with the fact that altogether 9 sale deeds were executed by the plaintiff concerned in the year 1972, goes to show that he had attained majority in 1972. It is the case of plaintiff that at the time of execution of the sale deeds he was minor. However, it is submitted that since the plaintiff had attained - 3 - majority in the year 1981 itself, he could have brought the suit for cancellation of those sale deeds only within three years therefrom, i.e., till the year 1984 and as such the suit having been instituted in the year 2006 is obviously time barred. The court concerned upon consideration of rival submissions, had come to conclusion that according to the plaintiff’s case the sale deeds were not executed by him and the factum of existence of those sale deeds came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only on 10.1.2006. Subsequently, the suit was filed. Thus, in that view of the matter, it has been held that the issue of limitation could only be decided with other issues, after appreciation of evidence led on behalf of the parties. This Court also finds after perusal of averments made in paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint that the issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not can only be decided after appreciation of evidence led on the point and, thus, this court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the concerned court in coming to the aforesaid conclusion - 4 - and passing the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)