Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1503 (MP)

Chandi Ji Mandir Trust v. Ramkumar Asati

2013-12-03

R.S.JHA

body2013
ORDER 1. The applicants have filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the Court of IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Hatta (Damoh) in Civil Suit No.1-A/2012, whereby the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the suit in question relates to declaration and injunction regarding property belonging to the trust. It is submitted that the property was declared as trust property way back in the year 2008 by the Registrar, Public Trusts but the respondents, instead of filing the suit within the period of limitation prescribed under section 8 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, have filed the suit after four years which is apparently time barred. It is submitted that inspite of the aforesaid facts which are apparent, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicants on the ground that the provisions of the Act, regarding limitation, have no applicability. It is further submitted that apart from the aforesaid, the suit has been filed beyond the period of 3 years from the date the cause of action arose and, therefore, even otherwise, is barred by limitation. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, submits that the suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiffs for declaration and injunction in respect of their ancestral property which is being taken over by the trust forcibly and inspite of complaints being made by the respondent/plaintiffs no action was being taken by the authorities. It is submitted that the respondents have specifically stated in the plaint that the cause of action in the matter arose on 30.12.2011 when the plaintiffs were given a notice by the concerned police station. It is also stated that thereafter the respondents came to know about the fact that the Registrar had wrongly declared the property concerned to be Public Trust property on 4.4.2008 and, they, therefore, approached the competent Court by filing a civil suit which is within the prescribed period of limitation. 4. The Court below has examined the contention of the parties and has recorded a finding to the effect that the issue regarding limitation and dismissal of the suit can be decided only on the basis of the plaint averments. 4. The Court below has examined the contention of the parties and has recorded a finding to the effect that the issue regarding limitation and dismissal of the suit can be decided only on the basis of the plaint averments. It is stated that the objections raised by the applicants in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, can only be decided after leading of evidence. The Court below has, therefore, dismissed the application filed by the applicants. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the averment in the plaint, I am of the considered opinion that the question of limitation, if any, in the present case is a mixed question of law and fact and can only be decided after adducing evidence at the time of final decision of the suit and cannot be decided in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, specifically keeping in mind the averment made by the plaintiffs. 6. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The revision, filed by the applicants, is accordingly dismissed. 7. It is, however, observed that the applicants may file a written statement by taking up the objections regarding limitation, if so advised, and in case the applicants do so, the concerned Court shall proceed further expeditiously in accordance with law and shall decide the issue at the time of final hearing. 8. With the aforesaid observations the revision, filed by the applicants, stands dismissed. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to the costs.