ORDER : 1. Heard leaned advocate Mr. J. F. Mehta for appellant and learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for learned advocate Mr. Kumar H. Trivedi for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Upon joint request and consent of learned advocates for respective parties, this matter is taken up for the final hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1. The appellant-original plaintiff had filed Special Civil Suit No.88 of 2023 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanand for a relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction. Original defendant Nos.1 to 3 i.e. present respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the code’) on the ground of limitation and wanting of a cause of action. The learned trial Court has allowed the Special Civil Suit No.88 of 2023 and rejected the plaint vide order dated 08.11.2023 below Exhibit-12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with said order, present appellant is before this Court. 4. Learned advocate Mr. J. F. Mehta for appellant submitted that the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract of a notarized agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002. Pursuant to the said agreement to sell, plaintiff was handed over the possession of the suit land, which is situated at village Rampura, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad having Khata No.130 and old survey/Block No.7 part new Block/Survey No.11 admeasuring 8475 square meter of old tenure land. It is submitted that the appellant also paid consideration by cheque on 23.04.2001. However, the registered sale deed was not executed in favour of the appellant. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 executed registered sale deed dated 06.07.2023 in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 and when the entry in the revenue record was mutated, the appellant came to know about the execution of the said sale deed. It is submitted that by virtue of the notarized agreement to sale dated 27.09.2002, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. However, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 executed the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6, which is null and void. It is submitted that by virtue of the notarized agreement to sale dated 27.09.2002, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. However, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 executed the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6, which is null and void. It is submitted that without cancellation of the notarized agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002, the execution of the registered sale deed dated 06.07.2023 is null and void and does not bind the appellant. 4.1 It is further submitted that the appellant has disclosed the cause of action in the plaint. The cause of action is bundle of facts and for the purpose of the assessing cause of action, the entire plaint has to be read over. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have disputed the existence of agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002 and for such grievance, the suit cannot be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. It is further submitted that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, averments made in the plaint and documents produced along with plaint are required to be seen. It is submitted that the relief of specific performance would be governed by the clauses of the agreement to sell and the appreciation of the agreement to sell would require a trial. It is also submitted that the entire sale consideration has been paid by the appellant to respondent Nos.1 to 3, which can be seen from the agreement to sell itself. Since the entire sale consideration has been paid by the appellant, respondent Nos.1 to 3 put the appellant in possession of the suit land and therefore, under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) under the principles of part performance of the contract, the appellant has every right to seek a relief for specific performance of the agreement to sell and applying the provisions of Section 53(A) of the Act, the plaint cannot be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 4.2 By referring to Clause 4 of the agreement to sale dated 27.9.2002, It is submitted that there is no time limit prescribed for performance of the agreement to sell. 4.2 By referring to Clause 4 of the agreement to sale dated 27.9.2002, It is submitted that there is no time limit prescribed for performance of the agreement to sell. When the parties have agreed not to bind themselves under a specific time limit for execution of the registered sale deed, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. Since the time is not the essence of contract, the plaint is well within the period of limitation. 4.3 Article 54 of the Limitation Act is relied upon by the leaned advocate for the appellant and has submitted that the said Article 54 is divided into two parts, (i) where time is fixed for performance of the contract and (ii) where no time is fixed. It is submitted that when the time is fixed, limitation would expire on lapse of the three years from the date of such performance, whereas no time is fixed, time would start to run from the date of knowledge of refusal to perform the obligation to execute the sale deed. 4.4 It is further submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant and thus, in absence of direct and specific refusal, the question of limitation is a question of fact and the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. It is further submitted that when respondent Nos.1 to 3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 on 06.07.2023 and when the entry of the said registered sale deed was mutated in the revenue record, the appellant came to know about the execution of said registered sale deed. Since the appellant came to know about the execution of registered sale deed on 06.07.2023, cause of action for seeking a relief of specific performance arose and thus, the suit is within limitation. Further submission on this line, is that a deemed refusal could be construed from the date of execution of the registered sale deed 06.07.2023. It is further submitted that pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002, the name of the appellant is mutated in the revenue record. Thus, the only thing left out is the execution of registered sale deed in favour of the appellant. 4.5 Learned advocate for appellant has placed reliance upon the following decisions:- “1. It is further submitted that pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002, the name of the appellant is mutated in the revenue record. Thus, the only thing left out is the execution of registered sale deed in favour of the appellant. 4.5 Learned advocate for appellant has placed reliance upon the following decisions:- “1. Urvashiben Versus Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-SC 63203. 2. Sri Biswanath Banik Versus Sulanga Bose reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 68538. 3. G. Nagaraj Versus B. P. Mruthunjayanna reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 71024. 4. Geeta, D/o Late Krishna & Ors. Versus Nanjundaswamy & Ors. Reported in 2023 (0) AIJELSC 72723. 5. Himmatbhai Madhavbhai Rohir Versus Gopalbhai Himmatbhai Prajapati reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-HC 244691” 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has resisted the First Appeal and has mainly supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court in rejecting the plaint. It is the submission of leaned advocate for the respondents that the alleged agreement to sell upon which the suit is executed on 27.09.2002 and since that day, the appellant has remained silent till the present Special Civil Suit came to be filed. Thus, the suit is clearly hit by the provisions of the Limitation Act and the same is clearly time-barred. It is submitted that from the averments made in the plaint and the documents in support of the plaint, it can be seen that the suit is time-barred. It is submitted that the suit land is situated at Block No.130 of Village Rampura, Taluka Sanand admeasuring 8734 square meter and names of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are reflected in revenue records. The land adjacent to suit land admeasuring 2-00 hectare of Block No.60 is owned by the present appellant by a registered sale deed executed in the year 2006 and the name of the present appellant was entered into revenue records qua said Block No.60. The said facts are also reflected in the plaint. The revenue record, which is placed on record by the appellant along with the plaint, show that in the Block No.130 names of respondent Nos.1 to 3 are reflected whereas in Block No.60 the name of appellant is mutated. The said facts are also reflected in the plaint. The revenue record, which is placed on record by the appellant along with the plaint, show that in the Block No.130 names of respondent Nos.1 to 3 are reflected whereas in Block No.60 the name of appellant is mutated. It is further submitted that even on perusal of the plaint, there is no cause of action to file the suit for the prayers as prayed for in the plaint. If the agreement to sell is coupled with possession, the said agreement requires registration on that ground also plaint is devoid of merits and requires rejection. 6. I have heard learned advocates for respective parties. On perusal of the plaint, it can be seen that the suit is for the specific performance of a notarized agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002 and for the cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 06.07.2023 executed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6, the suit land is situated at village Rampura, Taluka Sanand of District Ahmedabad admeasuring 8734 sq. mtrs. of Block No.130. An agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002 was executed in favour of the appellant by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Sale consideration of Rs. 1,87,500/- through Cheque dated 23.04.2001 was accepted by respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is interesting to note that in the agreement to sell, there is no time limit agreed upon between the parties for the execution of a registered sale deed. What was agreed upon between the parties in the said agreement to sell is that till the execution of sale deed, the agreement to sell would remain in existence. No agreement to sell shall remain in force till indefinite time. In absence of such time limit the conduct of seller would be vital and from such conduct, refusal can be attributed. In the present case, agreement to sell is dated 27.09.2002 and the suit is filed in the year 2023 and that too after the suit land is transferred in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6. From the averments made in the plaint, the plaint is silent about the date of refusal of the registered sale deed in favour of appellant. 7. When agreement to sell is silent regarding time limit plaintiff must aver in the plaint plead regarding circumstances under which plaintiff could not approach the Court for specific performance. From the averments made in the plaint, the plaint is silent about the date of refusal of the registered sale deed in favour of appellant. 7. When agreement to sell is silent regarding time limit plaintiff must aver in the plaint plead regarding circumstances under which plaintiff could not approach the Court for specific performance. The averments made in the plaint are very vague and in para (10) of the plaint, the averments made by the plaintiff are that after the execution of registered sale deed on 06.07.2023, when appellant approached respondent Nos.1 to 3, they asked for more amount of consideration. It is also averred that the plaintiff agreed to pay the increased amount of consideration as per Jantri rate. On 13.04.2023, the plaintiff purchased stamp of Rs.1,74,000/-, but the respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not remain present and did not execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. There is nothing on record to point out that the appellant purchased this stamp of Rs.1,74,000/- on 13.04.2023 except bare averments in the plaint. Thus, after the registered sale deed dated 06.07.2023, the appellant approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 and bought stamp. Plaint is silent regarding any averment that within 3 years of the agreement to sell dated 27.9.2002, appellant approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 and requested for execution of sale deed. An illusion is tried to be created by making bald and baseless averments that the suit is within time. 8. Even on the meaningful reading of the plaint and considering the documents placed on record, there is no whisper in the plaint as to how the plaint is within the period of limitation. From the date of execution of the agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002, till the filing of the suit, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the plaintiff has taken any steps for either requesting the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to execute registered sale deed. In absence of such steps being taken by the appellants, a principle of deemed refusal would come into play. Thus, the suit is barred by law of limitation. 9. In absence of such steps being taken by the appellants, a principle of deemed refusal would come into play. Thus, the suit is barred by law of limitation. 9. In the case of Urvashiben (supra), the plaintiff has alleged that the seller has given trust and believe that a registered sale deed would be executed in their favour and it is also alleged in the plaint that the defendants have expressed their refusal to execute a registered sale deed in their favour. In the present case, there are no such averments made in the plaint. Hence this decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 10. In the case of Sri Biswanath Banik (supra), the suit was for declaration of right, title and interest in the property and for confirmation of plaintiff’s possession as part performance of contract under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 coupled with enforcement of agreement seeking direction against the defendant to execute registered sale deed. In the background of such prayers, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the reliefs sought for in the plaint can be considered at the time of trial and the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. In the present case, the suit is neither for the confirmation of appellant’s possession as part performance of contract nor for a declaration of right title and interest in the suit property. Even the revenue record does not show that appellants are in possession of suit properties. Applying the principle that the possession go with the registered document in the present case except revenue entry, there is nothing on record to show that appellants are in possession of suit land. This Court is of the opinion that there is no legal possession of appellant qua suit land. Hence this decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 11. In the case of G. Nagaraj (supra), the suit was for declaration of title and for a relief of permanent injunction. Since the reliefs sought for in the plaint were for declaration of title, in that background of the facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that on inconsistent averments in the plaint, it cannot be said that the cause of action is not disclosed in the plaint and on such facts, it was observed that the plaint does disclose the cause of action. In the present case, averments made in the plaint are very vague and there is no whisper about as to when the request for execution of registered sale deed was turned down by the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence this decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 12. In the case of Geetha, D/o Late Krishna & Ors. (supra), it was a case of Joint Family Property and the Karta of the family was used to mortgage the properties and out of the said funds used to clear dues over the property. It is also observed that when the plaintiff asked for partition the defendants instead of denying, kept giving promises for the updation of the revenue record, the suit for partition and separate possession of the properties was filed and the plaint was rejected in part. On this background of the fact, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was not considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it was observed that the plaint cannot be rejected in part and the application of provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are impermissible. Hence this decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 13. In the case of Himmatbhai Madhavbhai Rohir (supra), the suit was for specific performance of agreement to sell and in the agreement to sell, a time limit was fixed for the specific performance. There was also a clause in the agreement to sell, if the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of sale consideration and if the vendor does not execute the sale deed, the vendee shall be entitled to initiate legal proceedings for execution of the sale deed. Thus, the assertion of the plaintiff was that there was a time limit prescribed in the agreement to sell and the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of sale consideration and also sent legal notice to execute the sale deed and when the defendant did not execute registered sale deed, the suit came to be filed within a period of limitation. In the present case, plaintiff has neither taken any steps to get registered sale deed executed in his favour nor remained vigilant regarding his rights to get registered sale deed in his favour. Hence this decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 14. In the present case, plaintiff has neither taken any steps to get registered sale deed executed in his favour nor remained vigilant regarding his rights to get registered sale deed in his favour. Hence this decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 14. Non averring or non mentioning of any material fact, statement in the plaint or suppression of any background by the plaintiff or would also attract provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code by clever drafting if plaintiff suppresses any material fact, statement from the Court and than tries to create an illusion that the suit is within limitation, such approach is not permissible in the Court will nip it in bud at the earliest so that the bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage and under such circumstances, provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (A) and/or (D) of the Code are attracted, Order 7 Rule 11 is reproduced hereunder. “11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; [(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] [(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or Provided that requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for supplying be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]” 15. In my opinion statements made in the plaint also includes non mentioning of any material statements regarding the controversy. In my opinion statements made in the plaint also includes non mentioning of any material statements regarding the controversy. The reason is simple that the plaintiff is seeking reliefs based on the statements, averments made in the plaint and if by clever drafting, if material statement is not pleaded whereby to obtain favourable orders from the Court, provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (A) and/or (D) are attracted and the Court of its own without any application of the other side has power and jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (A) and/or (D) of the Court. This Court is of the opinion that plaintiff must aver in the plaint as to how the suit is within a period of limitation. In absence of such pleading of fact, provision of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code are attracted. 16. The learned trial Court has considered the averments made in the plaint and also considered various decisions. The grounds for cancellation of sale deed are not averred in the plaint. What is averred in the plaint is that a notarized agreement to sell is executed in favour of the appellant and on the basis of such agreement to sell, the plaintiff has claimed a relief of specific performance. An execution of registered sale deed 06.07.2023 can not be a cause of action for relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.09.2002. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law in allowing application below Exhibit-12 and rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(1)(d) of the Code. Thus, the present First Appeal lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed, accordingly it is dismissed with no order as to costs. In view of dismissal of the main matter, connected Civil Application will no longer survive and the same stands disposed of.