JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat dated 29.04.2016 passed below Exh. 37 in Special Civil Suit No. 605 of 2013, by which, the application submitted by the original defendants, in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present First Appeal. 2. That the appellants herein - original plaintiffs had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 605 of 2013 against the respondents - original defendants in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat for declaration and permanent injunction and in the alternative for damages/compensation. The suit which is filed in the month of October 2015, the original plaintiffs have prayed to declare the registered sale deed dated 25.03.2003 (with respect to land bearing block No. 146, Town Planning Scheme No. 58 and Final Plot No. 46 situated at village Bamroli); the sale deed dated 27.06.2002 (with respect to land bearing block No. 141, Town Planning Scheme No. 58 and Final Plot No. 42 situated at village Bamroli) and the registered sale deed dated 10.05.2004 (with respect to land bearing block No. 114, Town Planning Scheme No. 58 and Final Plot No. 42 situated at village Bamroli) as null and void and without consideration and on the forged power of attorney. The plaintiffs have also prayed that confirmation deed obtained by the defendant No. 1 with respect to the aforesaid properties be also declared void ab-initio and illegal as the same is obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring and/or alienating the suit properties/lands. The original plaintiffs have also prayed for decree of possession. In the alternative, the original plaintiffs have prayed to Rs. 213,67,28,000/- towards compensation/damages/market price. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the grandfather of the original defendants has done cheating and breach of trust with the plaintiff No. 1 and got sale deed executed in his favour without any consideration and by taking false signature and by concocting forged power of attorney. 2.1. 213,67,28,000/- towards compensation/damages/market price. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the grandfather of the original defendants has done cheating and breach of trust with the plaintiff No. 1 and got sale deed executed in his favour without any consideration and by taking false signature and by concocting forged power of attorney. 2.1. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that with respect to the property description bearing (a) the sale deed was executed by the original plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the grandfather of the defendants in the year 2002 bearing No. 4475 dated 27.06.2002 and thereafter No. 2549 dated 25.03.2003 before the Sub Registrar. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the said sale deed was executed by and through the Power of Attorney Naginbhai Chhimkabhai, however plaintiff No. 1 had not given such power of attorney and sale deed does not bear the signature of the plaintiff No. 1. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that thereafter the plaintiffs issued the legal notice dated 05.09.2013 where the defendants gave vague and evasive reply. 2.2. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that with respect to property description bearing (b) the sale deed is executed bearing No. 2550 of 2003, however, the signature of the plaintiff No. 1 is forged and fabricated and the confirmation deed is void ab-initio and as without consideration. 2.3. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that in respect of property bearing description (c), the signature of plaintiff No. 1 is forged and fabricated and the confirmation deed is void-ab-initio and as it is without consideration. Therefore, plaintiffs prayed for the aforesaid reliefs. 2.4. Having served with the notice of suit, the original defendant No. 1 appeared before the learned trial Court. He submitted that the application at Exh. 37 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the suit is barred by limitation. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing reply at Exh. 48. That thereafter, impugned order the learned Judge has allowed the application Exh. 37 and has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation. 2.5. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing reply at Exh. 48. That thereafter, impugned order the learned Judge has allowed the application Exh. 37 and has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation. 2.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original plaintiffs have preferred present First Appeal. 3. Shri R.R. Marshal, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Arpit Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original defendant No. 1 on caveat. 4. Shri Marshal, learned Counsel for the appellants-original plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Marshal, learned counsel for the appellants- original plaintiffs that limitation is mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the plaintiff should be given opportunity to lead the evidence even on the aspect/issue of limitation, which can be only at the stage of trial. 4.1. It is further submitted by Shri Marshal, learned counsel for the appellants that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the plaintiffs were alleged the fraud, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by law of limitation, for which, the plaint is required to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4.2. It is further submitted by Shri Marshal, learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that it was the specific case on behalf of the original plaintiffs so pleaded in the plaint that all the sale deeds were without consideration and therefore, have no sanctity in the eye of law. 4.3. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that even it was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that even the subsequent confirmation deed is also illegal, void ab-initio and without consideration. 4.3. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that even it was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that even the subsequent confirmation deed is also illegal, void ab-initio and without consideration. It is submitted that therefore, when there are specific averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to non payment of sale consideration and/or that the sale deeds and confirmation deed are without consideration, the learned trial Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at this stage in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4.4. It is further submitted by Shri Marshal, learned counsel for the appellants that even in the plaint, the plaintiffs also prayed for decree of possession and therefore, considering the Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation to file suit for possession would be 12 years and therefore, considering the Article 65 of the Limitation Act, it cannot be said that for the aforesaid relief of possession, suit is barred by limitation. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have rejected the plaint. 4.5. It is further submitted by Shri Marshal, learned counsel for the appellants- original plaintiffs that when the original plaintiffs have alleged fraud in the suit with respect to execution of the sale deeds under challenge, at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure only the averments in the plaint are required to be considered. It is submitted that in view of the above, the plaintiffs should be given opportunity to prove fraud. It is submitted that therefore, the plaint ought not to have rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case reported in 2013(2) GLR 559, Shri Marshal, learned counsel for the appellants - original plaintiffs has requested to admit/allow the present First Appeal. 5. Present appeal is opposed by Shri Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate for the original defendant No. 1. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case reported in 2013(2) GLR 559, Shri Marshal, learned counsel for the appellants - original plaintiffs has requested to admit/allow the present First Appeal. 5. Present appeal is opposed by Shri Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate for the original defendant No. 1. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate for the original defendant No. 1 that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the learned Judge having satisfied that the suit is barred by law of limitation and consequently when the learned Judge has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 5.1. It is vehemently submitted that as such the sale deeds dated 25.03.2003, 27.06.2002 and 10.05.2004, for which, the declaration is sought were registered sale deeds and therefore, the original plaintiffs deemed to have knowledge of execution of such registered sale deed. It is submitted that therefore, when the suit has been preferred in the year 2013, for the aforesaid sale deeds, the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, as the suit is required to be filed within a period of three year. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5.2. It is further submitted by Shri Vyas, learned advocate for the original defendant No. 1 that even thereafter with respect to the aforesaid documents, there was confirmation deed in the year 2005 with respect to aforesaid sale deeds and therefore, at least from 2005 the plaintiffs can be said to have the knowledge and therefore, even considering starting point of limitation from 2005 i.e. from the date of confirmation deed and the suit has been preferred in the year 2013, suit is clearly barred by law of limitation. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly rejected the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly rejected the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Now, so far as submission on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have alleged fraud and therefore, the plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to lead the evidence at the time of trial and therefore, the plaint ought not to have rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Vyas, learned advocate for the original defendant No. 1 that mere such averment to bring the suit within the purview of the Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not sufficient. It is submitted that the same must be further substantiated by necessary averments in the suit/plaint. It is submitted that otherwise anybody with a view to defeat the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would make vague averment and allege fraud without substantiating the same and can plead like in the present case that the plaintiffs must be given opportunity to prove the fraud at the time of trial. It is submitted that if the same is permitted in that case, purpose and object of the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be frustrated. 6.1. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the original plaintiff that as in the suit relief for decree of possession is sought and therefore, considering the Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which provides limitation for 12 years, the suit can be said to be within the period of limitation is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Vyas, learned advocate for the original defendant No. 1 that as such prayer of possession sought, is a consequential relief. It is submitted that when the main reliefs are found to be barred by law of limitation, merely by claver drafting and praying for relief of possession, the suit cannot be permitted to be brought within a period of limitation. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Hede And Company reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614 . In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Hede And Company reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614 . It is further submitted that even otherwise considering Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes the period of limitation of 12 years, the limitation would start from the date on which the possession of the plaintiff is disturbed and/or from the date of hostile possession. It is submitted that there are no allegations and/or averments whatsoever in the plaint that on which date their possession is disturbed and/or there is any hostile possession. It is submitted that therefore, in absence of any such averments and pleadings, it cannot be said that the suit is within the period of limitation. 6.2. It is further submitted by Shri Vyas, learned advocate for the original defendant No. 1 that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is absolutely in consonance with the purpose and object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and/or in furtherance of the object and purpose of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6.3. Shri D.D. Vyas, learned advocate for the respondents has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in support of his above submissions and in support of his submission to dismiss the present appeal. "(1) T. Trivandam v. T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 . (2) Chruch of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in, AIR 2012 SC 3912 . (3) Kanjibhai Bhagwanjibhai Patel v. Nanduben Shamjibhai Sorathiya Through P.O.A Dharmesh P. Trivedi and Ors. reported in, 2013 (1) GLR 51 . (4) Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel and Anr. v. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel & Ors. 2013 (1) GLR 398. (5) Dilboo (Smt) (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Dhanraji (Smt) (Dead) reported in, (2000) 7 SCC 702 . (6) Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Hede And Company reported in, (2007) 5 SCC 614 ." Making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We have considered the averments and allegations in the plaint. (6) Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Hede And Company reported in, (2007) 5 SCC 614 ." Making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We have considered the averments and allegations in the plaint. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Judge rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by impugned order, the learned Judge has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred of limitation. Therefore, the learned Judge has exercised the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Before considering the present appeal on merits, few decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are required to be referred to and considered. 9.1. In the case of T. Trivandam v. T.V. Satyapal reported in, (1977) 4 SCC 467 while considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the decree of trial Court in considering the such application, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 has observed and held as under: "We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and merit less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and merit less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits." 9.2. In the case of The Chruch of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in, AIR 2012 SC 3912 , in para 8 to 10 has observed and held as under: "8. While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words "cause of action". A cause 9 Page 10 of action must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. 9. In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 : AIR 1989 SC 1239 , this Court explained the meaning of "cause of action" as follows: "12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff." 10. It is useful to refer the judgment in Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 322 , wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under: "28. By "cause of action" it is meant every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court, (Cooke v. Gill, 1873 LR 8 CP 107). In other words, a bundle of facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit." It is mandatory that in order to get relief, the plaintiff has to aver all material facts. In other words, it is necessary for the plaintiff to aver and prove in order to succeed in the suit." 9.3. In the case of Kanjibhai Bhagwanjibhai Patel v. Nanduben Shamjibhai Sorathiya Through P.O.A Dharmesh P. Trivedi and Ors. reported in, 2013 (1) GLR 51 , the learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has observed and held that if on considering the averments in plaint, it is found that suit is time barred, the plaint/suit can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9.4. In the case reported in Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel and Anr. v. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel & Ors. 2013 (1) GLR 398, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilboo (Smt) (Dead) by L.Rs. 9.4. In the case reported in Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel and Anr. v. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel & Ors. 2013 (1) GLR 398, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilboo (Smt) (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Dhanraji (Smt) (Dead) reported in, (2000) 7 SCC 702 , the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed and held that registration of the documents can be said to be a deemed knowledge and the plaint can be rejected on the ground that the same is barred by law of limitation. 10. Now, so far as the facts of the case on hand are concerned, as observed herein above, the original plaintiffs have prayed for declaration to declare the registered sale deeds 25.03.2003, 27.06.2002 and 10.05.2004 as void ab-initio void and without consideration. It is required to be noted that all the three sale deeds were registered before the Registering Authority at the relevant time. It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that even subsequently and even after legal notice was served by the plaintiffs somewhere in the year 2005, there seem to be some settlement and further confirmation deed was executed by the plaintiffs, more particularly, plaintiff No. 1 in which, there is reference to the aforesaid registered sale deeds. Therefore, as such at least from the confirmation deed in the year 2005, in which, there is reference to aforesaid registered sale deeds, the plaintiffs can be said to have the knowledge. Therefore, considering the fact that the suit has been filed in the year 2013 and as per the provision of Limitation Act, the suit challenging the sale deed is required to be filed within a period of three years, even considering the averments and pleadings in the suit as they are, suit is clearly barred by law of limitation. Under the circumstances, when the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, considering the Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint can be rejected and is rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. 11. Under the circumstances, when the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, considering the Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint can be rejected and is rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. 11. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the original plaintiffs that there are allegations of fraud and therefore, the plaintiffs must be given opportunity to prove the same at the time of trial and plaint is not required to be rejected at this stage is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that except one or two sentences alleging fraud, there are no other pleadings/averments in the plaint. There must be necessary pleadings/averments to state material facts as required under Order 6 Rule 2 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the pleading has to contain a statement in a concise form of material facts on which the party relies for his claim or defence. Order 6 Rule 4 provides that whenever the pleading is for misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence, the particulars shall be stated in the pleadings. Neither exist in the present case for any material facts or particulars for the alleged collusion or fraud for which the prayers have been made in the plaint and everywhere the word fraud and collusion is used without any details or the mode or manner or material particular of such so called fraud. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid submission on behalf of the original plaintiffs has no substance. 12. Now, so far as reliance placed upon Article 65 of the Limitation Act by Shri. Marshal, learned counsel for the appellants-original plaintiffs and his submitted that as in the plaint plaintiffs have prayed decree for possession and therefore, considering the Article 65 which prescribed limitation of 12 years suit would be within the period of limitation is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the plaint there are no specific averments and/or pleadings that on which date the possession of the plaintiffs have been disturbed and the defendants have entered the suit land and/or obtained the possession. There are no allegations, even no pleadings or averments in the plaint with respect to even any hostile possession. There are no allegations, even no pleadings or averments in the plaint with respect to even any hostile possession. There are no averments that on which date their possession is disturbed. Under the circumstances, without any further pleadings, merely because, there is prayer for possession, the suit which is otherwise barred by law of limitation with respect to other prayers, the suit cannot be permitted to be brought within the limitation only by such prayer. The claver drafting and seeking relief of possession would not bring the suit within the period of limitation. In the case of Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no relief as prayed for in the suit could be granted by the clever device of filing a suit for injunction, without claiming a declaration as to their subsisting rights under a renewed agreement, which is apparently barred by limitation. Applying law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, by claver device of asking relief of possession, which as such can be said to be a consequential relief, the plaintiffs cannot get the main relief of declaration which otherwise is barred by law of limitation as observed herein above. 13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order passed by the learned Judge is absolutely in consonance with the provision of purpose and object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fail and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 13.2 In view of dismissal of First Appeal, Civil Application stands dismissed.