JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Rule. Shri A.S.Vakil, learned advocate appearing on Caveat waives service of notice of rule in each of the revision applications on behalf of respective respondent/s. With the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, all these revision applications are taken up for final hearing today. As common question of law and facts arise, all these revision applications are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In all these revision applications, respective petitioner-original defendant No. 1 of Civil Suit Nos. 111 of 1998, 114 of 1998 to 142 of 1998, and 144 of 1998 to 157 of 1998 pending in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol, District: Gandhinagar has challenged the impugned orders dated 28th January, 2009 passed below Exh. 116 in Regular Civil Suit No. 111 of 1998 (so far as Civil Revision Application No. 146 of 2009) and passed below respective applications in respective suits submitted by the petitioner herein-original defendant No. 1, submitted under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC by which, the learned trial Court has dismissed the said applications and rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-original defendant No. 1 to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground that suits are per se barred by limitation. 3. Original plaintiffs have instituted Regular Civil Suit Nos. 111 of 1998, 114 of 1998 to 142 of 1998, and 144 of 1998 to 157 of 1998 against the petitioner, original defendant No. 1 and another for a declaration and permanent injunction declaring that the sale-deeds executed in favour of petitioner-original defendant No. 1 by the so called Power of Attorney of the original plaintiffs – original land owners, executed between the year 1983-1984 are illegal, null and void and not binding to the respective plaintiffs. Permanent injunction is also sought restraining the defendants from disturbing and/or interfering with the possession of the disputed land in question of the plaintiffs. Permanent injunction is also sought restraining the defendants from disturbing and/or interfering with the possession of the disputed land in question of the plaintiffs. That somewhere in August, 2008, the petitioner herein-original defendant No. 1 submitted the application/s before the learned trial Court to dismiss the respective suits under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC by submitting that respective suits are barred by limitation as the suits in question for such a declaration were required to be instituted within a period of 3 (three) years from the date of knowledge and admittedly, the respective plaintiffs were having knowledge of the execution of the sale-deeds somewhere in the year 1983-84, when the mutation entries in favour of the original defendant No. 1 on the basis of such sale-deeds were made and therefore, it was requested to dismiss the aforesaid suits under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. That the learned trial Court by impugned order dated 28th January, 2009 dismissed the said applications without deciding the said applications on merits and solely relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta reported in (2007) 10 SCC 59 by observing that plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, at a belated stage, after filing of the written statement, framing of the issues and at the stage of recording the evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Court dismissed the said applications without considering anything on merits on the ground that such an application is filed at a belated stage and when the evidence is to be led and the same is at the stage of recording the evidence. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in respective suits submitted by the respective petitioner – original defendant No. 1 have preferred the present civil revision applications. 4. Shri Bhargav Bhatt, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respective petitioner-original defendant No. 1 and Shri Mihir Thakore, learned senior advocate with Shri A.S.Vakil, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original plaintiffs. 5. 4. Shri Bhargav Bhatt, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respective petitioner-original defendant No. 1 and Shri Mihir Thakore, learned senior advocate with Shri A.S.Vakil, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original plaintiffs. 5. Shri Bhargav Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-original defendant No. 1 has vehemently submitted that as such, learned trial Court has misread and/or misinterpreted the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra). It is submitted that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has never stated/held that the application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC is not required to be entertained, if it is given at a belated stage and after issues are framed and/or such application is given at the time of recording the evidence. It is submitted that as such, in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC was given not only at a belated stage, after filing of the written statement and framing of the issues but it was given after the plaintiff was examined and cross-examined and no question was asked in the cross-examination whether the suit is barred by limitation or not and it was further found that learned trial Court rejected the plaint by reading only few lines/passages in the plaint and ignoring other relevant paras of plaint and in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the plaint at the belated stage that too without adverting to all the materials which were available in the plaint. Therefore, it is requested to either consider the applications submitted by the petitioner – original defendant No. 1 submitted under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC on merits or to remand the matter to the learned trial Court for deciding the applications submitted by the petitioner-original defendant No. 1 and to decide the same on merits as learned trial Court has not dealt with and consider the applications submitted by the petitioner-original defendant No. 1 on merits to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioner – original defendant No. 1 has also tried to submit the case on merits in support of his submission to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation by submitting that the respective suits filed by the original plaintiff is clearly barred by limitation. However, for the reasons stated hereinafter and as there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and they have agreed to remand the matter to the learned trial Court for deciding the applications afresh and on merits, this Court does not propose to consider the same on merits and therefore, this Court has not permitted the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners to submit the case on merits. 6. Shri Mihir Thakore, learned senior advocate appearing with Shri A.S.Vakil, learned advocate appearing on behalf of original plaintiffs has initially tried to support the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the applications submitted by the original defendant No. 1 and has also tried to submit the case on merits by submitting that the suits for such a declaration can be filed within 3 (three) years from the date on which, it hurt the plaintiffs. However, this Court also does not propose to consider the case on merits and therefore, has not permitted the learned Counsel to make submissions on merits. Thereafter, Shri Mihir Thakore, learned senior advocate has agreed and submitted that original plaintiff/s would not have any objections in remanding the matter to the trial Court for deciding the applications submitted by the original defendant No. 1 to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC on merits, without in any way being influenced by the fact that such applications were submitted belatedly and the issues are framed. He has submitted that he does not invite any further reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the trial Court. He has submitted that he does not invite any further reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the trial Court. However, he has submitted that it may be observed that all other questions available to the original plaintiffs available under the law are kept open and all the questions on merits are also kept open and the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the said applications on merits without in any way being influenced by the fact that the impugned orders are now set aside by this Court. 7. Shri Bhargav Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-original defendant No. 1, has also stated at the Bar that he has no objection if the impugned orders are set aside and matters are remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding the applications submitted by the petitioner-original defendant No. 1 requesting the trial Court to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC on merits with suitable observations as requested by Shri Mihir Thakore, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. He has submitted that he also does not invite any further reasoned order. 8. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the applications submitted by the respective petitioner – original defendant No. 1 by which, it was requested to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Considering the impugned orders, it appears that learned trial Court without dealing with and considering the applications on merits has rejected the said applications solely relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra), on the ground that as observed and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that application to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC is not maintainable and is not required to be entertained, if the same is submitted at a belated stage and after filing of the written statement, framing of the issues and at the stage of recording the evidence. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned trial Court rejected the said applications without considering the same on merits, by observing that the said applications were submitted by the petitioner-original defendant No. 1 at a belated stage and after the written statement was filed and the issues were framed and it is at the stage of recording the evidence. Now on considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra) it appears that the learned trial Court has misinterpreted and misread the said judgment. It appears that learned trial Court has not gone through the entire judgment and as solely relied upon and/or considered the head notes in the said decision. It appears that the learned trial Court has not even cared to consider under what facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed and quash and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court and of High Court, by which the plaint was rejected on the ground of limitation. 9. In this regard, how to read the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be considered: 9.1 In the case of Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation v. Mansaram Nainwal reported in (2006) 6 SCC 366 : it is observed by the Apex Court that "Reliance on the decision without looking into factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed in para-13 as under: "13.......A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. An inferential perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647 and Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, 1996 (6) SCC 44 .) A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words in an Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem, (1900-03) All ER Rep. 1 (HL), Earl of Halsbury, L.C. observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually decides". 9.2 In the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Another v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another reported in (2002) 3 SCC 496 : in paragraph No. 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Harton, 1951 AC 737 (at p.761) Lord MacDermot observed: (AIR ER p. 14C-D). Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Harton, 1951 AC 737 (at p.761) Lord MacDermot observed: (AIR ER p. 14C-D). "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished Judge." 9.3 In the case of Dhodha House v. S.K.Maingi reported in (2006) 9 SCC 41 : in paragraph No. 36, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "it is well settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom". 9.4 Again in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavalli reported in (2007) 6 SCC 81 : the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "the judgment must be read in its entirety" . 10. On considering the entire judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra) it appears that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court not only the application to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC was submitted at a belated stage after filing of the written statement, framing of the issues, but it was also found that even the plaintiff was cross-examined after filing of the written statement, framing of the issues including on limitation, evidence was led, plaintiffs were cross-examined, thereafter, before conclusion of the trial, the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC was filed for rejection of the plaint and it was found that there was not even suggestion to plaintiff to the effect that suit filed by him is barred by limitation. It was also found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the learned trial Court rejected the plaint reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant paras of plaint and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "20. For our purpose, Clause (d) is relevant. It was also found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the learned trial Court rejected the plaint reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant paras of plaint and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "20. For our purpose, Clause (d) is relevant. It makes it clear that if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. For the said purpose, it is the duty of the person who files such an application to satisfy the Court that the plaint does not disclose how the same is in time. In order to answer the said question, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to verify the entire plaint. Order 7 Rule 12 mandates where a plaint is rejected, the Court has to record the order to that effect with the reasons for such order. Inasmuch as the learned trial Judge rejected the plaint only on the ground of limitation, it is useful to refer the averments relating to the same. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by taking us through the entire plaint, submitted that inasmuch as sufficient materials are available in the plaint, it is proper on the part of the trial Court to decide the suit on merits and not justified in rejecting the plaint that too after the evidence of the plaintiff. 21. Before passing an order in an application filed for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), it is but proper to verify the entire plaint averments. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, few lines or passage should not be read in isolation and the pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. 22. It is also relevant to mention that after filing of the written statement, framing of the issues, including on limitation, evidence was led, the plaintiff was cross-examined, thereafter before conclusion of the trial, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed for rejection of the plaint. It is also pertinent to mention that there was not even a suggestion to the appellant-plaintiff to the effect that the suit filed by him is barred by limitation". It is also pertinent to mention that there was not even a suggestion to the appellant-plaintiff to the effect that the suit filed by him is barred by limitation". Therefore, considering the entire judgment as a whole, it appears that on the facts stated hereinabove, Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down absolute proposition of law that if an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation has been submitted at a belated stage and after the issues are framed, written statement is filed, the same cannot be entertained at all (as observed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order). Such an observation relying upon the aforesaid decision is absolutely on misreading and misinterpretation of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or it can be said that the learned trial Court has not considered the decision as a whole at all. Under the circumstances, impugned orders cannot be sustained. 11. As stated herein above, the learned trial Court has not at all considered and/or dealt with the applications submitted by the petitioner-original defendant No. 1 to reject the plaints under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of limitation, on merits and therefore, both the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have agreed that matter may be remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding the said applications on merits and there is a broad consensus to the aforesaid fact. 12. 12. In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties recorded herein above, without observing anything on merits in favour of either parties, the impugned orders passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol rejecting the applications submitted by the respective petitioner – original defendant No. 1 submitted under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol to decide the said applications afresh and on merits without in any way being influenced by the fact that the applications were submitted at a belated stage and the issues are framed. The learned trial Court to decide the said applications on merits. It is observed that all the defenses available to the original plaintiffs in support of their claim that for such a declaration and relief sought in the plaint, the suit is within the period of limitation and all other questions which are available to the respective parties are kept open and the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the said applications on merits without even being influenced by the present order and/or quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by this Court. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol is hereby directed to decide and dispose of the said applications on merits within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the present order. Learned advocates for the respective parties have assured the Court that respective parties to the suits and their advocates shall co-operate the learned trial Court in deciding the aforesaid applications and within a stipulated time stated herein above and they shall not ask for any unnecessary adjournment. 13. Rule is made absolute in each of the revision applications to the aforesaid extent. No costs. 14. Registry is directed to send the writ of this order to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol at the earliest but not later than 15th April, 2010. Matter remanded to decide afresh.