JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur passed below Exhs. 19 and 33 in Special Civil Suit No. 429 of 2012, by which, the learned Judge has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original plaintiffs have preferred present First Appeal. 2. That the appellants-original plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid Special Civil Suit in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge on 30.06.2012 for declaration to declare that the sale deed executed by the original defendant No. 6 in favour of original defendants No. 2 to 5 bearing registration No. 8990 dated 25.6.2008 with respect to lands bearing survey No. 137 situated at village Makarba, Tal: City, Dist. Ahmedabad is illegal, forged and against the interest of the original plaintiffs. It was also further prayed for a declaration that sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of original defendant No. 1 dated 16.7.2008 is true sale deed. It was contended on behalf of the original plaintiffs and so averred in the plaint that the suit land in question was new tenure land and therefore, they applied for conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure and the Collector, Ahmedabad passed an order dated 07.11.2005 determining the premium amount of Rs. 1,93,35,400/-. That against the said order, the plaintiffs preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which subsequently came to be withdrawn as the plaintiffs agreed to pay the amount of premium with 12% interest. That the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed an order dated 25.2.2008 in favour of the plaintiffs. That the original plaintiffs through original defendants No. 1, made payment from the bank account of the original defendant No. 1 on 25.6.2008. It was further averred that on the very day i.e. 25.6.2008, the original defendant No. 6 as their power of attorney executed the sale deed in favour of original defendants No. 2 to 5 for sale consideration of Rs. 51,00,000/- only. Therefore, it was further averred that the said registered sale deed executed by the original defendant No. 6 in favour of original defendant Nos. 2 to 5 is null and void. It was further averred that thereafter the plaintiffs executed sale deed in favour of original defendant No. 1 on 16.7.2008. 51,00,000/- only. Therefore, it was further averred that the said registered sale deed executed by the original defendant No. 6 in favour of original defendant Nos. 2 to 5 is null and void. It was further averred that thereafter the plaintiffs executed sale deed in favour of original defendant No. 1 on 16.7.2008. It was further averred that the sale deed executed by the original defendant No. 6 in favour of original defendant Nos. 2 to 5 on the basis of cancelled power of attorney and same was executed behind the back of the original plaintiffs, the same is null and void. It was further averred that the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of original defendants No. 2 to 5 is true and correct sale deed. It was further averred that the plaintiffs have not received any sale consideration from the defendants Nos.2 to 5. With the aforesaid averments, the plaintiffs prayed for the aforesaid reliefs. 2.1. That having served with the summons/notice of the suit, the original defendants No. 2 to 5 and 6 preferred applications at Exh. 19 and 33 requesting to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule (a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was the case on behalf of the original defendants No. 2 to 6 that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs and that the suit is barred by law of limitation. The aforesaid application was opposed by the original plaintiffs by filing written submission to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That thereafter, considering the averment in the plaint and the documents which were produced by the plaintiffs along with plaint and the averments in the application, by impugned order the learned trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure observing that the suit is barred by law of limitation. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original plaintiffs have preferred present First Appeal. 3. Shri C.P. Champaneri, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants-original plaintiffs and Shri Shital Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of original defendants Nos. 2 to 6. 3.1. 3. Shri C.P. Champaneri, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants-original plaintiffs and Shri Shital Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of original defendants Nos. 2 to 6. 3.1. Shri C.P. Champaneri, learned advocate for the appellants-original plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3.2. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Champaneri, learned advocate for the original plaintiffs that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court has materially erred in considering the documents produced by the original defendant Nos. 2 to 6. 3.3. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Champaneri, learned advocate for the original plaintiffs that as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only the averments in the plaint are required to be considered. 3.4. It is submitted that therefore, if the averments in the plaint are considered and it is specifically mentioned that from the date of knowledge the suit has been preferred within the period of limitation, the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3.5. It is submitted that while rejecting the application the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such original defendant No. 6 executed the sale deed in favour of the original defendants Nos. 2 to 5 on the basis of forged power of attorney. It is submitted that even the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that even thereafter the plaintiffs executed the sale deed in favour of the original defendant No. 1. It is submitted that therefore, the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Shital Patel, learned advocate for the original defendants No. 2 to 6 herein. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and even from the averments in the plaint and the documents produced by the plaintiffs along with the suit, the suit can be said to be barred by law of limitation. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and even from the averments in the plaint and the documents produced by the plaintiffs along with the suit, the suit can be said to be barred by law of limitation. 4.1. It is submitted that as such from the very beginning the original plaintiffs were in knowledge of the execution of the sale deed by the original defendant No. 6 in favour of original defendants No. 2 to 5 which is evident from the revenue proceedings and the orders passed by the revenue authorities which are produced by the plaintiffs themselves. It is submitted that therefore, when the suit has been filed beyond the period of three years for a declaration to declare the sale deed dated 25.6.2008 as null and void and without consideration, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4.2. It is further submitted by Shri Shital Patel, learned advocate for the original defendants No. 2 to 6 that according to the plaintiffs, they executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 and therefore, it cannot be said that after they have executed sale deed they would have any right, title or interest in the property. It is submitted that therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be said to be any cause of action to file the suit. It is submitted that as such the original defendant No. 1 had already instituted one another suit for the very relief and the same is suppressed by the original plaintiffs. It is submitted that in any case when the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the aforesaid declaration, is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Making above submission, it is requested to dismiss present appeal. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. We have also perused the averment in the plaint. 6. Making above submission, it is requested to dismiss present appeal. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. We have also perused the averment in the plaint. 6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the suit, the original plaintiffs have sought declaration to declare the sale deed dated 25.6.2008 executed by the original defendant No. 6 in favour of original defendants No. 2 to 5 as null and void and illegal and have also prayed for declaration that the subsequent sale deed executed by them in favour of original defendant No. 1 is true sale deed. 6.1. It was argued by the learned advocate for the original plaintiffs that as the original defendant No. 6 executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants No. 2 to 5 on the basis of forged power of attorney, the learned trial Court not to have rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, considering the reply filed by the plaintiffs to the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and even from the averment in the suit, it is the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the original defendant No. 6 had executed the sale deed in favour of original defendants No. 2 to 5 on the basis of cancelled power of attorney. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs have come with two contradictory cases. 6.2. In any case, considering the averments in the plaint and the supporting documents produced by the plaintiffs themselves, more particularly, from the orders passed by the revenue authorities, which are produced by the plaintiffs themselves, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs had knowledge with respect to sale deed dated 25.06.2008 executed by the original defendant No. 6 in favour of original defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in the year 2008 itself. The suit has been filed in the year 2012. Under the circumstances, suit is clearly barred of law of limitation i.e. period of 3 years from the dated of knowledge. 7. 2 to 5 in the year 2008 itself. The suit has been filed in the year 2012. Under the circumstances, suit is clearly barred of law of limitation i.e. period of 3 years from the dated of knowledge. 7. Now, so far as submission of Shri Champaneri, learned advocate for the original plaintiffs that in the plaint it is specifically averred that they recently came to know about the sale deed and therefore, looking to the averments in the plaint, the plaint ought not to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, by a claver drafting the suit which is even otherwise barred by law of limitation, cannot be permitted to be brought within the period of limitation. There are vague averments in the plaint with respect to knowledge. Nothing has been stated on which date and how they came to know about the sale deed dated 25.06.2008. On the contrary, from the orders passed by the revenue authorities between the parties, which are produced by the plaintiffs themselves, it can be said that plaintiffs had knowledge about the sale deed dated 25.06.2008 in the year 2008 itself. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. 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. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fails and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.