ORDER : (Decided On : 23-04-2025 ) Since the lis and parties involved in these revision petitions are same, these matters were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. CRP.Nos.1158, 1170 and 1380 of 2020 are filed by defendant Nos.35, 40 and 39 respectively, challenging the orders dated 24.02.2020 passed in IA.Nos.984, 915 and 914 of 2019 respectively, in OS.No.592 of 2018 by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. 3. The brief facts of these cases are that the revision petitioners who are defendants in the above suits filed the above IAs., under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘ CPC ’) praying for rejection of plaint. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said IAs., vide impugned orders dated 24.02.2020 observing that the plaint discloses some cause of action and the same is sufficient even though the chance of success for the plaintiff in the suit, are remote. Hence, these revisions. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, and learned counsel appearing for respondents, respectively, in all the revision petitions. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are replete with glaring illegalities and contraventions of established legal principles. He contended that the plaints and supporting documents filed by the plaintiffs woefully fail to disclose valid cause of actions for the suits, particularly with regard to the reliefs sought for recovery of possession and cancellation of registered documents executed since the year 1971. He lamented that egregious lacunas were further compounded by the respondents' categorical admission in their pleadings in OS.No.27 of 2010, wherein, they unequivocally acknowledged executing a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in the year 1970, authorizing the attorneys to sell the lands, which were coupled with the subsequent sale to third parties, renders the suit irrevocably barred by limitation. He asserted that the respondents have engaged in a blatant exercise of creating an illusory and manufactured cause of actions, replete with frivolous and mischievous assertions, which are utterly devoid of any factual foundation. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners incessantly contended that the failure of respondents to specify the date of land acquisition proceedings for the Outer Ring Road (ORR), which occurred in the year 2005-06 and that the same is a glaring omission which would highlight the infirmities in their case. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners incessantly contended that the failure of respondents to specify the date of land acquisition proceedings for the Outer Ring Road (ORR), which occurred in the year 2005-06 and that the same is a glaring omission which would highlight the infirmities in their case. He averred that the respondents cannot be permitted to circumvent the law of limitation through clever drafting, artfully omitting crucial details that would unequivocally render the suit barred, and that the attempt of respondents to create a cause of action through false statements made on oath is utterly unsustainable in law, and that the same warrants stringent reprobation. In support of their contentions, reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali , (2020) 7 SCC 366 C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and Others , [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1330] , and in the judgment rendered by this Court in Bajranglal Agarwal Vs. Susheela Agarwal and Others , [(2024) SCC OnLine TS 1823] . Therefore, prayed this Court to allow these revision petitions, setting aside the impugned orders dated 24.02.2020. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the allegations made by the petitioners are entirely false, baseless, and devoid of any merit. They averred that the plaints would clearly discloses a valid cause of actions for the suits, as the respondents have specifically pleaded that they came to know about the fraudulent GPA and sale deeds through a news article published in the month of May 2018. They lamented that the suits were well within the limitation period as the respondents have pleaded sufficient facts to establish their title and claim for recovery of possession. They emphasized that the respondents' pleadings are clear, specific, and unequivocal, and that they have provided ample evidence to support their contentions. In addition, they asserted that the contentions of leaned counsel for petitioners are entirely outside the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which governs the rejection of plaints. They reiterated that the plaints cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations made by the petitioners, as the same were unfounded and unsupported by evidence. In addition, they asserted that the contentions of leaned counsel for petitioners are entirely outside the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which governs the rejection of plaints. They reiterated that the plaints cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations made by the petitioners, as the same were unfounded and unsupported by evidence. In support of their contentions, they relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others , [ (2004) 3 SCC 137 ] , Chhotanben and Another v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Others , [ (2018) 6 SCC 422 ] , Salim D. Agbotwala and Others v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Others , [ (2021) 17 SCC 100 ] Urvashiben and Another v. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi, (2019) 13 SCC 372 Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others, (2021) 9 SCC 99 , P.V. Guru Raj Reddy and Another v. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others , [ (2015) 8 SCC 331 ] C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai and Another , [(2006) 14 SCC 183] , Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited v. Central Bank of India and Another , [ (2020) 17 SCC 260 ] and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 . Therefore, while advocating that there are no infirmities or illegalities in the impugned orders dated 24.02.2020, they prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions as the same lacks merits. 8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that suits were filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for cancellation of sale deeds executed in the year 1970. The first contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the alleged GPA was executed in the year 1970 and the same was known to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that being so, they cannot file suits stating that they came to know about the alleged fraud only in the year 2018 when a news item was published in the print media. 9. 9. Admittedly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with others filed OS.No.27 of 2010 on 20.01.2010 and in paragraph No.2 of the plaint there was mention regarding the execution of alleged GPA in the year 1970, stating that one Sri Motilal Chandumal and his family were displaced from West Pakistan during the partition of India and had a verified claim for compensation and that he was allotted land in Sy.No.288 of Poppalguda Village in the year 1970, and additional lands in Sy.Nos.289-296 were allotted in the year 1955. It was further stated that the said Motilal constituted attorneys, including Sri V.A. Vaswani and Hasaram Hassanand, through a GPA in the year 1970, and disposed of the lands in Sy.Nos.289-296 through them during his lifetime. Therefore, in view of the said mention made in the plaint, it cannot be said that the respondents were not aware of execution of GPA dated 02.10.1970. As such, there is no force in the said contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 10. In addition, in the averments of the plaint, it was clearly stated that except signing below their names, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not aware of the statements thereof, as the same were in English and that the same were not read over or explained to them by their GPA holders, subsequent to which compromise decree was passed. It was further contended that they have never seen the Advocate who was engaged on their behalf and that they were only aware that his name is Sri Rami Reddy, and that the said person filed caveats in respect of suit lands in OS.No.27 of 2010 in the name of respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the said contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2 as there was no clear mention regarding the averments that were explained to them before they signed the document. 11. Given the averments of the case on hand, there is no dispute that the original allottee, Motilal Chandumal, passed away on 19.05.1976, leaving behind his wife Nirmala Devi and three children: Brijkumar Motilal Bhaktani, Biharilal, and Jyothi Naraindas. Nirmala Devi later passed away on 21.04.2008, while Brijkumar Bhaktani died on 21.10.1982. The plaintiffs, being the children of Brijkumar Bhaktani, along with Jyothi Naraindas, are the only surviving legal heirs of the late Motilal Chandumal. Nirmala Devi later passed away on 21.04.2008, while Brijkumar Bhaktani died on 21.10.1982. The plaintiffs, being the children of Brijkumar Bhaktani, along with Jyothi Naraindas, are the only surviving legal heirs of the late Motilal Chandumal. However, the only contention of respondents herein is that Motilal Chandumal, the original allottee, never executed GPA in favor of Hassaram @ Hassanand Le., defendant No.1. Instead, verification would reveal that said GPA pertains to a mortgage deed executed by Ramesh Atmaram Patel in favor of Babulal Sankalchand and others. They specifically contend that they discovered the same only in May 2018 through a newspaper article, prompting them to file the present suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and declaration of the sale deeds as null and void, which they argue is within the limitation period. However, as discussed above, it is clear from paragraph No.2 of the plaint in OS.No.27 of 2010 that the same was very much in their knowledge and the said GPA was executed in the year 1970. That being so, subsequently, filing a suit praying for cancellation of decree cannot be a ground for filing another suit. 12. At this stage, it is imperative to note that in the judgment rendered in the case of Dahiben (supra) in paragraph No.24.2 it was held as under: “In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 ] this Court held that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words : (SCC p. 470, para 5) “5. … The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful—not formal—reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 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.…” 13. From the above extracted portion, it can be observed that when examining a plaint, the Court should conduct a meaningful, rather than merely formal, reading to determine if it appears to be manifestly vexatious and meritless. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing.…” 13. From the above extracted portion, it can be observed that when examining a plaint, the Court should conduct a meaningful, rather than merely formal, reading to determine if it appears to be manifestly vexatious and meritless. If the plaint fails to disclose a clear right to sue, the Court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC . However, the Court must ensure that the grounds for rejection are met. Moreover, if clever drafting has created an illusory cause of action, the Court should intervene at the outset and dismiss the plaint at the first hearing. Keeping in mind the said legal position, it is pertinent to note that the matter was compromised between the parties in the year 2017 itself, as such, after lapse of all these years, the respondents cannot take the plea that they were unaware of the averments of the plaint and that they signed on it without knowing the contents thereof. 14. However, it is to be noted that though learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Sopan Sukhdeo (supra 4) whereunder it was observed that “there cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, Segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities”, the same does not come to the aid of the respondents as the same cannot be considered to the facts of the case on hand. 15. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities”, the same does not come to the aid of the respondents as the same cannot be considered to the facts of the case on hand. 15. From the above extracted portion, it is made clear that when interpreting a plaint, it's essential to consider it in its entirety, rather than compartmentalizing or dissecting specific paragraphs or sentences. This approach ensures that the pleading is understood in its true context, as required by the fundamental principles of interpretation. Further, isolating sentences or passages from the rest of the plaint is not permissible, as it distorts their intended meaning. Instead, the pleading should be construed as it stands, without altering its wording or grammatical sense. The primary goal is to discern the intention of party from the overall tenor and terms of their pleadings. However, this should be done in a manner that avoids pedantic and overly technical approaches, which can lead to unjust outcomes. In the case on hand, merely denying the averments on the ground of being unaware does not give scope for any cause of action. 16. Furthermore, on behalf of respondents, reliance was also placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Chhotanben (supra 5) whereunder, in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 it was observed as under: “19. In the present case, we find that the appellant-plaintiffs have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original Defendants 1 and 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original Defendants 1 and 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestral property of the appellants. We affirm the view taken by the trial court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC . 20. In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation in reversing the view taken by the High Court and restoring the order of the trial court rejecting the application (Ext. 20. In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation in reversing the view taken by the High Court and restoring the order of the trial court rejecting the application (Ext. 21) filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC . Consequently, the plaint will get restored to its original number on the file of the IVth Additional Civil Judge, Anand, for being proceeded further in accordance with law. We may additionally clarify that the trial court shall give effect to the order passed below Ext. 17 dated 20-1-2016, reproduced in para 8, above, and take it to its logical end, if the same has remained unchallenged atthe instance of any one of the defendants. Subject to that, the said order must be taken to its logical end in accordance with law.” 17. In addition, reliance was also placed in the judgment rendered in the case of Salim (supra 6) whereunder, in paragraph No.8, it was observed as under: “Insofar as the rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasise that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. It is the case of the appellant- plaintiffs that only after making inspection of the records in connection with the suit land available in the office of Defendant 3 (Court Receiver) that they came across the correspondence and documents relating to the transactions and that the proceedings before ALT were collusive, fraudulent and null and void. The appellant- plaintiffs have even questioned the authority of the Court Receiver to represent them in the tenancy proceedings.” 18. At this stage, it is imperative to note that it is an admitted fact that while dealing with petitions filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC , the Court has to consider the plaint averments only, along with documents filed by the plaintiff. That being so, in the cases on hand, in the averments of plaints, they mentioned regarding filing of suit in 2010, whereas, denying the same on the ground of being unaware of averments cannot be accepted. Though learned counsel for respondents relied on the above judgment stating that limitation is mixed question of fact and law, in the suit that was filed in the year 2010 it is apparently showing knowledge, therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present cases. 19. Though learned counsel for respondents relied on the above judgment stating that limitation is mixed question of fact and law, in the suit that was filed in the year 2010 it is apparently showing knowledge, therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present cases. 19. In view of the above detailed analysis on factual background of the cases, the respondents cannot contend that they were unaware of execution of GPA in the year 1970 and only came to know about the same in the year 2018 through news article. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the version of respondents can be treated as clever drafting with intent to create illusory cause of action. 20. In view thereof, these revision petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders dated 24.02.2020 passed in IA.Nos.984, 915 and 914 of 2019 respectively, in OS.No.592 of 2018 by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB.Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.