JUDGMENT : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Chief Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit no. 12 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit in question”) whereby, application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) filed by the defendant no.8 has been allowed and the plaint has been rejected. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit. 2. The brief facts are stated thus: The plaintiff claims that agreement to sell dated 10.02.2010 came to be executed with respect to land bearing old revenue survey no.76 and new revenue survey no.110 admeasuring 83,533 sq. mtrs. situated at village Nasmed, taluka Kalol (hereinafter referred as “the land in question”) in his favour by the defendant no.1 with a duration of twelve months with a further condition of obtaining title clearance certificate and non-agricultural permission which obligation, was on the defendant no.1. The automatic extension was contained in the said condition. The defendant has recently obtained the NA permission. Disregarding the agreement to sell, sale deeds have been executed in the years 2010, 2023 and lastly in the year 2024 in favour of respective defendants. Being aggrieved that the suit has been filed. The plaint has been rejected apropos the application Exh.14 filed by the defendant no.8, inter alia, on the ground of it being barred by limitation. Hence the captioned appeal. - 3. Mr Kunjal Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff while inviting the attention of this Court to the prayers in the plaint submitted that over and above the prayer seeking specific performance, the plaintiff has also claimed damages and compensation, coupled with further prayers of challenge to the sale deed of the year 2010 in favour of defendant nos.3 to 6 and thereafter, sale deed of the year 2023 by the defendant nos.3 to 6 in favour of defendant no.8 who, in turn has executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.9. When there are multiple prayers, the learned Judge, was not right in rejecting the plaint. Moreover, the plaintiff has also prayed for relief of permanent injunction and hence, the plaint ought not to have been rejected. When there are multiple prayers, the learned Judge, was not right in rejecting the plaint. Moreover, the plaintiff has also prayed for relief of permanent injunction and hence, the plaint ought not to have been rejected. 3.1 It is next submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in selectively applying the provisions of Article 54 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1963") only while deciding the suit. In fact, considering the prayers, apart from Article 54, Articles 58 and 59 should have been applied. The learned Judge, while passing the order has focused only on the provisions of Article 54. Though the duration mentioned in the agreement to sell was twelve months, but as per further condition no.3 it required the original owner to obtain the title clearance certificate and the NA permission and until the title clearance certificate and NA permission were in place, there was an automatic extension contemplated in the agreement to sell. The defendant no.8, has obtained the NA permission only on 06.08.2024 which, is clear from the order passed by the office of the Collector & District Magistrate and hence, the limitation would start only from 06.08.2024 and the suit having been filed in the year 2025 is well within limitation. Therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have applied the provisions of Article 54 while considering the issue of limitation and rejecting the plaint on the ground of it being barred by limitation. - 3.2 It is next submitted that in absence of clear refusal, the case would be covered by the latter part of Article 54 and not the former. It is further submitted that the learned Judge was not right in observing that the refusal was in the year 2010 and such observation was in wake of Special Civil Suit of 184 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “previous suit of 2010”) filed by the defendant no.1 against the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2. It is further submitted that in terms of the transaction of immovable property, time would not be of the essence. 3.3 It is further submitted that reference has been made by the learned Judge on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindra Murlidhar Bhambhare vs. Champaben Wd/O Ambarambhai and Ors. 2. It is further submitted that in terms of the transaction of immovable property, time would not be of the essence. 3.3 It is further submitted that reference has been made by the learned Judge on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindra Murlidhar Bhambhare vs. Champaben Wd/O Ambarambhai and Ors. rendered in First Appeal no.2606 of 2024 in connection with the proposition that the clause providing automatic extension is not a legal clause. It is submitted that no opportunity was offered to the learned advocate. Had it been provided, the learned Advocate would have dealt with the said judgment. The learned Judge was also not correct in observing that there was an evil design at the end of the plaintiff inasmuch as, the plaintiff has not produced the judgment of the previous suit of 2010 on the record of the suit in question. The copy of the plaint of previous suit of 2010 was very much forming part of the suit in question and hence, to suggest that there was an evil design, was also an incorrect approach adopted by the learned Judge. It is submitted that accepting the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, and rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is vexatious and abuse of process of law, was incorrect. - 4. On the other hand, Mr Mihir H. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Dhruvil G. Merchant, Isa Hakim and Hatim Timvala, learned advocates for Gandhi Law Associates for the defendant no.8 on caveat submitted that the suit itself is an abuse of process of law and deserves to be dismissed by imposing exemplary cost. It is submitted that in the year 2010, previous suit of 2010 was filed by the defendant no.1 and 3 to 6, clearly stating that the plaintiff is not known to him. The defenant no.1 in the previous suit of 2010 has claimed that there is already a sale deed executed on 02.03.2010 by him in favour of defendant nos.3 to 6 and had sought for declaration that they be declared as the owners of the land in question. The claim of execution of power of attorney was also doubted inasmuch as, the power of attorney executed, was fraudulent for which, there was a criminal complaint filed. The claim of execution of power of attorney was also doubted inasmuch as, the power of attorney executed, was fraudulent for which, there was a criminal complaint filed. There was an entry added in the register of the Notary by adding additional number, which otherwise, was not in seriatim. The complaint was lodged against the defendant no.2, the plaintiffs and others involved. It is further submitted that the suit came to be decreed in the year 2017 and defendant nos.3 to 6 have been declared as the owners of the land in question on the basis of registered sale deed dated 02.03.2010. While the sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010 executed by the plaintiff as a power of attorney of defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no. 2, was quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the judgment and decree of the previous suit of 2010 in the suit in question. - 4.1 While referring to the plaint, it is submitted that there are multiple admissions of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff himself that the sale deed was executed in the year 2010 only with a view to nullifying the rights of the plaintiff, which is a straight admission. The suit therefore, is clearly filed after the clear silence of fifteen years. It is submitted that read the averments in the plaint and more particularly, paragraphs 14 to 16, the refusal at the end of the defendant no.1, is self evident. It is further submitted that the conduct of the plaintiff is unreliable and unconvincing, inasmuch as, the plaintiff in the plaint has referred to himself as a third person despite the fact that he himself was a power of attorney holder and misusing the power of attorney, had executed the sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010 in favour of defendant no.2. Read the averments made in the plaint, impression is sought to be created as if the third person and not the plaintiff, has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. It is further submitted that such conduct on the part of the plaintiff, is nothing, but an abuse of process of law and Court as well. Read the averments made in the plaint, impression is sought to be created as if the third person and not the plaintiff, has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. It is further submitted that such conduct on the part of the plaintiff, is nothing, but an abuse of process of law and Court as well. 4.2 It is further submitted that the learned Judge, was very much conscious regarding the prayer and has rightly observed that the foundational prayer of the plaintiff is seeking specific performance and that is how, the provision of the Article 54 was applied. It is next submitted that refusal of performance was clear way back in the year 2010 when the suit was filed, followed by the complaint etc. As many as on five occasions, there was refusal; firstly, when the sale deed was executed on 02.03.2010 by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.3 to 6; secondly, when police complaint was lodged on 08.03.2010 against the plaintiff and defendant no.2 and others; thirdly, when mutation entry no.7350 was cancelled on 21.09.2010; fourthly, filing of the previous suit in the year 2010; and lastly, when the judgment was passed in the year 2017 and the suit was decreed and defendant nos.3 to 6 were declared as owners. Hence, Article 54 has rightly been applied and the suit was considered to be barred by limitation. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the previous suit of 2010 filed by defendant no.1 came to be allowed in the year 2017. If not in the year 2010, but in the year 2017, the refusal was ostensible and the plaintiff could have taken steps in connection with the agreement to sell; however, the plaintiff chose to remain silent. Filing of the suit in question, in the year 2025, challenging the sale deed of the year 2010 and the subsequent sale deeds of the years 2023 and 2024 is nothing, but vexatious and abusive. - 4.3 It is submitted that grievance is raised that the learned Judge, has termed the filing of the suit by the plaintiff as evil design and rightly so for, the plaintiff, though has placed on record the copy of the plaint of the previous suit of 2010, has not produced the copy of the judgment rendered in the said suit. The previous suit of 2010 has been decreed in favour of the defendant no.1 and 3 to 6. In the plaint, it was a specific case of the defendant no.1 that the plaintiff is not known to him and misusing the power of attorney, the sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010 has been executed in favour of defendant no.2. It is further submitted that the date on which the power of attorney is claimed to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1, was attending the funeral of his cousin brother and was elsewhere. It is submitted that averments made in the plaint are distorted, giving an impression that the power of attorney holder is a third person and not the plaintiff. In fact, the sale deed executed by the plaintiff as a power of attorney in favour of the defendant no.2, was challenged and has been quashed and set aside. Moreover, the defendant nos.3 to 6 have been declared as a rightful owners of the land in question. The learned Judge was therefore, of the opinion that when the suit was filed and judgment is rendered, it was expected of the plaintiff to have placed on record the judgment of the previous suit of 2010, but the plaintiff chose not to do so. It is further submitted that applying the principle laid down in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 , the learned Judge held that the suit is nothing, but vexatious and abuse of process of law. It is contended that no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Judge in applying the provision of Article 54 and not Articles 58 and 59. - 4.4 While summarizing, it is submitted that in the plaint, the foundational relief is seeking specific performance which would be governed by Article 54 of the Act of 1963. So far as the alternative prayer is concerned, it is based on the performance of the agreement to sell. When the first prayer itself was barred by limitation, the consequential prayer would not be maintainable. The challenge to the sale deed executed in the year 2010 is barred by limitation inasmuch as, the previous suit of 2010 was decreed in favour of the defendant nos.1 and 3 to 6 in the year 2017. When the first prayer itself was barred by limitation, the consequential prayer would not be maintainable. The challenge to the sale deed executed in the year 2010 is barred by limitation inasmuch as, the previous suit of 2010 was decreed in favour of the defendant nos.1 and 3 to 6 in the year 2017. Resultantly, the challenge to the sale deeds, would not arise. Therefore, the contention of the learned advocate for the plaintiff of applying Articles 58 and 59 of the Act of 1963, is misplaced and untenable. It is submitted that Article 58 deals with declaration and provides for the limitation of three years from the date of right to sue first accrues. Similarly, Article 59 provides for cancellation or setting aside of instruments or decrees, or for rescission of a contract and the limitation provided is three years from the date of the facts first becoming known to him. In the case on hand, in the year 2010 itself, everything was known to the plaintiff and hence, the limitation would start from the year 2010. Therefore, all the prayers in the plaint are barred by limitation more so, when there is admission on the part of the plaintiff. It is therefore, urged that the suit is vexatious and abuse of process of law and has rightly been rejected. Since there is no error committed by the learned Judge, the appeal, deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage and may not be entertained. - 4.5 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr. LRS & Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 . Judgment in the case of Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India has been referred to wherein, it has been held and observed that word ‘first’ used between the words ‘sue’ and ‘accrued’, would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. It has also been held and observed that if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued. It has also been held and observed that if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued. It is therefore, submitted that the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff in the year 2010 and subsequent execution of the registered sale deeds in the year 2023 and 2024, would be inconsequential. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the paper-book, containing the plaint and the documents together with the plaint, made available. - 6. Centre to the issue is the agreement to sell dated 10.02.2010 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the duration fixed in the agreement to sell was twelve months; however, the condition no.3 provides for an automatic extension till the title clearance certificate or the NA permission is obtained by the original owner and as the NA permission was obtained only in the year 2024, until then, there was an automatic extension of the time. The suit, therefore, seeking specific performance was well within limitation. The defendant no.8 preferred an application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code seeking rejection of the plaint, taking a stand that the suit is grossly time barred under Article 54 of the Act of 1963. No breach or refusal was pleaded within three years of the alleged agreement to sell. Stand taken is that after 15 years of complete silence, now the right is claimed in the year 2025, which is both legally untenable and maliciously opportunistic. Inter alia, it is stated that the plaintiff has suppressed the binding judicial order dated 30.12.2017 passed in previous suit of 2010 whereby, the plaintiff and defendant no.2 were specifically barred from asserting rights over the land in question. Application further states that the suit is barred by law and lacks cause of action and is abuse of judicial process. Seeking specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 10.02.2010, is inadmissible as per the provisions of sections 17 (1) (b) and 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and does not create any right, title and possession. Application further states that the suit is barred by law and lacks cause of action and is abuse of judicial process. Seeking specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 10.02.2010, is inadmissible as per the provisions of sections 17 (1) (b) and 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and does not create any right, title and possession. The application further states that as per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 only registered sale deed can confer ownership. With this, request was made to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, it being barred by limitation, lacking cause of action and founded on fraudulent basis and suppression of material facts, thereby rendering the suit not- maintainable in law. Application came to be accepted by the learned Judge and the plaint has been rejected under the provisions of the Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. - 7. Before adverting to the judgment of the learned Judge, few relevant dates are required to be taken note of. (i) On 10.02.2010, unregistered agreement to sell without possession is claimed to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant no.1 on certain terms and conditions. The duration fixed is of twelve months with a further condition of requiring title clearance certificate and obtaining NA permission by the defendant no.1. Payment of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- is asserted. (ii) On 10.02.2010 power of attorney has been allegedly executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff. It emerges from the record that misusing the power of attorney, the plaintiff has executed a registered sale deed on 23.02.2010/04.03.2010 in favour of defendant no. 2 for the consideration of Rs.40,26,650/-. (iii) On 02.03.2010, the defendant no.1 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant nos.3 to 6. (iv) On 08.03.2010, defendant no.1 lodged a police complaint against (i) Jairambhai Gandabhai - defendant no.2, (ii) Saharbhai Lallubhai Rabari - plaintiff, (iii) Cheheraji Shambhuji Thakore, (iv) Mansuri Raofbhai Abdul Rehman, (v) Sushilaben (Notary who notarised the agreement to sell and receipt) for cheating and forgery of the power of attorney and sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010. The said police complaint was registered as FIR no.57 of 2010 on 20.03.2010. (v) On 23.04.2010, mutation entry no.7350 was posted recording the sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010. The said police complaint was registered as FIR no.57 of 2010 on 20.03.2010. (v) On 23.04.2010, mutation entry no.7350 was posted recording the sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010. (vi) On 21.09.2010, upon objection being lodged, the learned Mamlatdar, Kalol ordered the cancellation of the entry no.7350. - (vii) On 24.12.2010, previous suit of 2010 was instituted by the defendant no.1 and defendant nos.3 to 6 against the plaintiff and defendant no.2 seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed 23.02.2010/04.03.2010 and for cancellation of power of attorney dated 10.02.2010. (viii) On 30.12.2017, previous suit of 2010 was decreed in favour of the defendant no.1 and defendant nos.3 to 6. Defendant nos.3 to 6 are declared as rightful and lawful owners of the land in question, coupled with further declaration that the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the land in question. (ix) On 27.02.2025, the suit in question has been filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, seeking specific performance and cancellation of the sale deed dated 02.03.2010. 8. Thus, adverting to the previous suit of 2010, copy whereof is placed on record together with the plaint, would be relevant. Pertinently, when the sale deed was presented for registration, the execution of the registered sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010, was discovered, which led to the filing of the previous suit of 2010 by the defendant no.1 and 3 to 6 against the plaintiff and defendant no.2. The prayer was for setting aside the sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010 and seeking declaration of ownership. It is the stand taken that except the registered sale deed no.1962 dated 02.03.2010 in favour of the defendant nos.3 to 6, there is no other sale deed executed by the defendant no.1. It was the specific case of the defendant no.1 that he has not executed any power of attorney or has given any power in favour of anyone despite which, the defendant nos.1 and 2 (i.e. the plaintiff and defendant no.2 in the suit in question), misusing the power of attorney has executed the registered sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010. It has been further averred in the plaint that on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010, the defendant no.2 attempted to get the entry no.7350 posted in the revenue record which was objected by the defendant no.1 and 3 to 6, resulting into disputed case no.245 of 2010. It has been further averred in the plaint that on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010, the defendant no.2 attempted to get the entry no.7350 posted in the revenue record which was objected by the defendant no.1 and 3 to 6, resulting into disputed case no.245 of 2010. Further averment has been made that the entry no.7350 was cancelled by the learned Mamlatdar. It has been further stated in the plaint that the power of attorney is bogus and some mischief has been played by the Notary while inserting the details in the register. It is also stated that on 10.02.2010 the plaintiff – defendant no.1 was attending the funeral of his cousin brother. With this, the suit was filed challenging the sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.2. Besides, declaration was also sought for that the defendant nos.3 to 6 be declared as owners of the land in question with a further declaration, restraining the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 not to enter in the land in question through themselves or through their agent, servant and power of attorney and disturb the possession of defendant no.1 and 3 to 6. - 9. Therefore, the plaintiff was fully aware of the execution of the registered sale deed dated 02.03.2010 in favour of the defendant nos.3 to 6, so also the outcome of the previous suit of 2010, which was decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment dated 30.12.2017. During the course of the present proceeding, a copy of the said judgment has been placed on record. Although the plaintiff was a party to the previous suit of 2010, for the reasons best known to him, he selectively produced the copy of the plaint alone, while deliberately chose not to place on record the judgment dated 30.12.2017, rendered against him in the previous suit of 2010. The previous suit of 2010 had partly allowed the claim and declared defendant nos.3 to 6 as lawful and rightful owners of the land in question. Furthermore, the registered sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010 has been declared as illegal and invalid. Further permanent injunction was also granted, restraining the plaintiff and defendant no.2 from interfering with the possession of defendant nos.3 to 6 either directly or through their agents or servants. Furthermore, the registered sale deed dated 23.02.2010/04.03.2010 has been declared as illegal and invalid. Further permanent injunction was also granted, restraining the plaintiff and defendant no.2 from interfering with the possession of defendant nos.3 to 6 either directly or through their agents or servants. The plaintiff was well aware of the institution of the suit in the year 2010, having himself been a party to the suit proceedings and the suit, having been decided against him, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have disclosed in detail each and every aspect pertaining thereto, including the judgment; however, withholding or non-disclosure of the facts, which otherwise go to the root of the matter, disqualifies him from seeking any relief. It is fairly conceded by Mr Kunjal Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff that the suit was not contested by the plaintiff and was solely contested by the defendant no.2. Learned advocate also accepts that the suit was decreed in favour of the defendant no.1 and 3 to 6 and against the plaintiff. - 10. In light of the above, it becomes imperative to consider the pleadings in the present plaint to examine that why the learned Judge is not wrong in observing in the judgment that the filing of the suit, is an evil design on the part of the plaintiff. In paragraph 13, the version put forth by the plaintiff, in vernacular and free english translation would be: “it is the say of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 has lodged a complaint with Kalol police station on 08.03.2010 wherein, (i) Jairambhai Gandabhai, (ii) Saharbhai Lallubhai Rabari, (iii) Cheheraji Shambhuji Thakore, (iv) Mansuri Raofbhai Abdul Rehman, (v) Sushilaben (Notary who notarised the agreement to sell and receipt) were named as accused and that they have committed an offence of land grabbing by forging the document”. The said complaint has been registered as FIR no.57 of 2010 on 20.03.2010. Although the plaintiff himself is named as accused in the FIR, it merely refers to the name and does not qualify that he is an accused in the said proceedings. Similarly, in paragraph 14 of the plaint, the plaintiff narrates the sequence of events albeit with certain distortion. Paragraph 14 refers to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant nos.3 to 6. Similarly, in paragraph 14 of the plaint, the plaintiff narrates the sequence of events albeit with certain distortion. Paragraph 14 refers to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant nos.3 to 6. Interestingly, the plaintiff, while referring to the filing of the previous suit of 2010, has cleverly avoided stating that he himself was a party to the same and instead refers to himself in the third person. In paragraph 16 of the plaint, the plaintiff makes a reference to the disposal of the previous suit of 2010; however, deliberately omits placing the judgment dated 31.12.2017 on record. Such conduct of the plaintiff reflects lack of bona fides. The above-referred averments and more particularly, in paragraphs 13 to 16, is nothing but a clever drafting, only with a view to circumventing the issue of limitation. Pertinently, the plaintiff was a party to the previous suit of 2010 proceedings and when there is a binding judgment against him, it is difficult to fathom as to how and on what count, the plaintiff now seeks to challenge the sale deed dated 02.03.2010 executed in favour of defendant nos.3 to 6 by defendant no.1 especially, when defendant nos.3 to 6 have been declared rightful owners of the land in question and such judicial pronouncement remains unchallenged and binding. - 11. Moving further, it is important to note that the plaintiff while referring to the cause of action, has cited the execution of the sale deed of the year 2010 and subsequent sale deeds of the years 2023 and 2024. It is significant to note that the plaintiff was aware about the execution of the sale deed of the year 2010. Therefore, the plaintiff’s right to sue, if any, first accrued in the year 2010 itself. It was the plaintiff, who chose not to take any steps, let alone contest the previous suit of 2010. The previous suit of 2010 came to be allowed in the year 2017 and as already stated hereinabove, the plaintiff neither took any steps nor has challenged the judgment. - The plaintiff now seeks specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.02.2010 through a suit filed in the year 2025. The previous suit of 2010 came to be allowed in the year 2017 and as already stated hereinabove, the plaintiff neither took any steps nor has challenged the judgment. - The plaintiff now seeks specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.02.2010 through a suit filed in the year 2025. As rightly submitted by Mr Mihir H. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel that the plaintiff was confronted with repeated refusal on several occasions, namely, (i) Execution of the registered sale deeds dated 02.03.2010 by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.3 to 6, (ii) Filing of the criminal complaint against the plaintiff and others, (iii) Objection to the mutation entry no.7350 and subsequent cancellation thereof, (iv) Institution of a suit denying receipt of consideration and acquaintance of the defendant no.1 with the plaintiff, and (v) judgment dated 30.12.2017 passed in previous suit of 2010 declaring the defendant nos.3 to 6 as the owner. All throughout, the plaintiff never claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell of the year 2010 and could not have claimed in view of the binding judgment dated 30.12.2017. Thus, when the foundational relief itself is barred by limitation, the learned Judge rightly applied the provisions of Article 54 of the Act of 1963 and rejected the plaint. 12. It is by now well settled that underlying object of the Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to prevent abuse of the judicial process. If a suit is, inter alia, barred by limitation under the provisions of Rule 11 (d), the Court is duty bound to reject the plaint and not allow the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the litigation. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. In the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal (supra), the Apex Court, has held and observed that if meaningful – not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court, shall exercise his power under Or. VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled and if a clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing. VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled and if a clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing. Relevant paragraph 5 of the said judgment, read thus: - “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the 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 meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Or. VII r. 1 1 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. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: "It is dangerous to be too good."” 16. Similarly, in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (supra), the Apex Court has considered the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, so also the Articles 58 and 59 of the Act of 1963. In paragraphs 26 and 27, it has been held thus:- “26. Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act, prescribe the period of limitation for filing a suit where a declaration is sought, or cancellation of an instrument, or rescission of a contract, which reads as under : “Description of suit Period of l imitation Time from which period begins to run 58. To obtain any other declaration. Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act, prescribe the period of limitation for filing a suit where a declaration is sought, or cancellation of an instrument, or rescission of a contract, which reads as under : “Description of suit Period of l imitation Time from which period begins to run 58. To obtain any other declaration. Three years When the right to sue first accrues. 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract Three years When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.” - The period of limitation prescribed under Articles 58 and 59 of the 1963 Act is three years, which commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues. 27. In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India this Court held that the use of the word ‘first’ between the words ‘sue’ and ‘accrued’, would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued.” 17. In paragraph 27, the Apex Court has held that the use of the word “first” between the words “sue” and “accrued”, signifies that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation shall commence from the date on which the right to sue first accrues. In the cases of successive violation of such right, no fresh cause of action would arise, and the suit shall be liable to be dismissed, if it is filed beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to note that, the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff in the year 2010 when the previous suit of 2010 was filed and decided. The plaintiff, despite the knowledge of such proceedings, failed to take any steps. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to note that, the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff in the year 2010 when the previous suit of 2010 was filed and decided. The plaintiff, despite the knowledge of such proceedings, failed to take any steps. As a result, the present suit is clearly barred by limitation. The learned Judge, therefore, has rightly considered the provisions of Article 54 and rightly concluded against the plaintiff. Furthermore, the learned Judge, has duly considered the instances of express refusal as mentioned in paragraph 12. The learned Judge has clearly observed that there were instances, which were sufficient to suggest that there was a refusal by the defendant no.1. Considering the above factual undisputed aspects in juxtaposition with the provision of Article 54, the learned Judge, has rightly concluded that reading Article 54 of the Act of 1963 as a whole, namely, Part I and Part II, even then, the suit, is barred by limitation. - 18. While concluding the learned Judge, has also taken into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff, specifically the fact of filing of the previous suit of 2010, as well as its disposal. Despite this were within the knowledge of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not produced the judgment rendered in the suit proceedings. The learned Judge, thus, was of the opinion that the plaintiff had suppressed the material fact; however, since the judgment has been placed on record, the same, may be considered. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, so also the principle laid by the Apex Court in various judgments, the learned Judge rightly allowed the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and consequently rejected the plaint. 19. In light of the above discussion, this Court, is of the opinion that the learned Judge has committed no error in accepting the application and rejecting the plaint. Therefore, the First Appeal, lacks merits and does not deserve to be entertained. The captioned appeal is therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

Saharbhai Lallubhai Rabari v. Thakore Naranji Savadhanji