JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN) 1. Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.09.2024 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Civil Suit No. 345 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit") whereby the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") filed by the defendant nos. 16 to 22 has been allowed, and the plaint came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the suit. - 2. Mr.Sikander Saiyed, learned Advocate appearing with Mr.S.V. Shah, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs, relying upon the family tree, submitted that the plaintiffs are from the branch of Maganbhai Nathabhai, the son of Nathabhai Jivaniya. Maganbhai Nathabhai had two brothers Somabhai Nathabhai and Bababhai Nathabhai. It is submitted that Maganbhai Nathabhai had five children including the plaintiffs. After the death of Maganbhai Nathabhai in the year 1970, vide entry no. 1281, names of his heirs, including the plaintiffs were posted and the names of the plaintiffs were reflected in the revenue record. The purported registered partition-release deed was executed between Somabhai Nathabhai on one hand and Kanjibhai Keshabhai and others including the plaintiffs on the other. It is by this partition- release deed whereby it is claimed by the defendants that the plaintiffs have relinquished their right; however, the plaintiffs have never signed the so called partition-release deed. The said release deed is a result of collusion by other family members specially defendant nos. 1 to 10 and 23 to 25. It is submitted that everything was done behind the back of the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs were not aware about the so called partition-release deed. The defendants by playing fraud have executed the partition-release deed, and is not binding upon the plaintiffs. It is submitted that it was only in the year 2020, when the plaintiffs visited their village, they were told by the relatives about omission of their names in the revenue record. The plaintiffs, thereafter, procured the documents and it revealed that the names of the plaintiffs have been deleted at the instance of the defendants. It is submitted that it was only in the year 2020, when the plaintiffs visited their village, they were told by the relatives about omission of their names in the revenue record. The plaintiffs, thereafter, procured the documents and it revealed that the names of the plaintiffs have been deleted at the instance of the defendants. - 2.1 It is further submitted that immediately after the execution of the partition-release deed, the sale deed came to be executed in favour of defendant no. 11 who was a non- agriculturist and could not have purchased the land. Subsequent thereto, two other sale deeds were executed both dated 09.08.1996, one by the branch of Mangalbhai Veerabhai and another by the branch of Somabhai Nathabhai and others in favour of defendant nos. 12 to 15. It is submitted that since the sale deeds were in favour of non-agriculturists, four cancellation deeds came to be executed, all dated 20.05.2003. Neither the execution of sale deeds in favour of defendant no. 11 nor execution of sale deeds in favour of defendant nos. 12 to 15 was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Besides, the deeds of cancellation were not known to the plaintiffs. Sale deeds came to be executed in favour of defendant nos. 16 to 19 in the year 2003 and in the year 2017, the defendant nos. 18 and 19 sold their share in favour of defendant nos. 21 and 22. All the sale deeds have been executed behind the back of the plaintiffs. Since the partition-release deed of the year 1981 itself, is executed by committing fraud, subsequent sale deeds would not have any sanctity in the eye of law and is null and void. - 2.2 It is next submitted that immediately when the plaintiffs came to know about the transactions, the suit is filed which, has been wrongly rejected by the court below. When there is a fraud committed, the suit ought not to have been rejected on the ground of limitation. It is therefore submitted that the appeal deserves consideration. 3. Per contra, Mr.Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Parthiv Shah, learned Advocate for defendant nos. 20 and 22 submitted that Nathabhai Jivaniya had three sons i.e. Somabhai Nathabhai, Bababhai Nathabhai and Maganbhai Nathabhai. The plaintiffs are the branch of Maganbhai Nathabhai who passed away in the year 1970. It is therefore submitted that the appeal deserves consideration. 3. Per contra, Mr.Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Parthiv Shah, learned Advocate for defendant nos. 20 and 22 submitted that Nathabhai Jivaniya had three sons i.e. Somabhai Nathabhai, Bababhai Nathabhai and Maganbhai Nathabhai. The plaintiffs are the branch of Maganbhai Nathabhai who passed away in the year 1970. In the year 1981, two registered partition-release deeds were executed, one by Mangalbhai Veerabhai on one hand and other family members on the other and the another between Somabhai Nathabhai on one hand and Kanjibhai Keshabhai and other family members including the plaintiffs on the other, for 6626 sq. mts. each, before the office of the Sub- Registrar of which, there is no dispute. Therefore, to claim ignorance and denying putting thumb impressions on the partition-release deed would be incorrect. After the release deed was executed, entry no. 1653 dated 03.09.1981 was posted in the revenue record and was certified on 22.01.1982 after following the due procedure. It is therefore difficult to believe that the plaintiffs were unaware about the partition- release deed executed by them let alone the entries in the revenue record. - 3.1 It is further submitted that numerous sale deeds have been executed in the interregnum. As the defendant no. 11 was a non-agriculturist, cancellation deed was executed cancelling the sale deed of the year 1981. Similarly, sale deeds executed in the year 1996 in favour of defendant nos. 12 to 15 were also cancelled, as they were also non- agriculturists. On 20.05.2003, registered sale deed no.2364 came to be executed in favour of defendant nos. 16 to 19 with respect to whole of survey no. 441 admeasuring 13,253 sq. mts. by respondent nos.6 and others. Thereafter, in the year 2017, the sale deeds came to be executed by defendant nos. 18 and 19 in favour of defendant nos. 21 and 22. Therefore, when there was already a registered partition-release deed executed in the year 1981 followed by mutation entries in the revenue record further followed by numerous registered sale transactions, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. 3.2 It is next submitted that subsequent to the execution of the sale deed in the year 2017, necessary permission seeking conversion of the lands was applied which, was granted as well as the land was converted into old tenure. 3.2 It is next submitted that subsequent to the execution of the sale deed in the year 2017, necessary permission seeking conversion of the lands was applied which, was granted as well as the land was converted into old tenure. Not only that, construction is also on the verge of completion. It is submitted that it would be impermissible for a party to sit for so many years and then start taking steps, putting the already created rights of the third parties in jeopardy. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singhs reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601 . The suit was filed after approximately 22 years from the date of execution of the gift deed which, according to the parties, was a showy deed. The Apex Court, held that for almost 22 years, no steps were taken and thus, by not rejecting the plaint, the court below and the High Court committed an error. - 3.3 Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Thru. Legal Representatives and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 . It has been held and observed that by clever drafting of the plaint, if has created an illusion of the cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest. It is therefore urged that registered partition- release deed was executed in the year 1981; however, no steps were taken for almost forty years and suddenly, in the year 2021, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs which, would be barred by limitation and hence, no error has been committed by the court below in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation. 4. Mr.Sikander Saiyed, learned Advocate has briefly responded by submitting that the execution of the partition- release deed reflects the conduct of the defendants inasmuch as, all the transactions have taken place on the same day. Besides, sale deed was executed in favour of defendant no. 11 who was a non-agriculturist, which otherwise, was impermissible and the attempt was nothing but to nullify the rights of the plaintiffs. Besides, sale deed was executed in favour of defendant no. 11 who was a non-agriculturist, which otherwise, was impermissible and the attempt was nothing but to nullify the rights of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the partition- release deed was executed misusing the thumb impressions and hence, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were aware about the partition-release deed and the subsequent sale deeds executed. Hence, the appeal deserves consideration. - 5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the documents made available on the record. 6. Tersely stated are the facts. Jivaniya Liliya Raval was having two sons Nathabhai Jivaniya and Veerabhai Jivaniya. Veerabhai Jivaniya had six children, while Nathabhai Jivaniya had three sons namely Somabhai Nathabhai, Bababhai Nathabhai and Maganbhai Nathabhai. The plaintiffs are the branch of Maganbhai Nathabhai who, as per the record has passed away on 01.03.1970. Apropos which, on 16.06.1971, entry no. 1281 was posted in the village form no. 6 and names of the heirs of Maganbhai Nathabhai were brought on the record including the plaintiffs. On 01.09.1981, two partition- release deeds for land admeasuring 6626 sq. mts. each were executed, one by the branch of Veerabhai Jivaniya and other family members and another by branch of Nathabhai Jivaniya i.e. Somabhai Nathabhai on one hand and other family members including the plaintiffs on the other. It is not in dispute that the partition-release deed was registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar. All the parties to the partition- release deed have put their thumb impressions though, it is claimed by the plaintiffs that the thumb impressions on the partition-release deed are not theirs. Subsequent thereto, various entries have been posted as and when the heirs were required to be brought on the record either for the release of rights or for posting of the names of the heirs on the record. - 7. After the registered partition-release deed was executed, two sale deeds were executed by the respective branches of Veerabhai Jivaniya and Nathabhai Jivaniya in favour of the defendant no.11. Also, in the year 1996, two sale deeds were executed by the branches of Nathabhai Jivaniya and Veerabhai Jivaniya. Since the sale deeds were executed in favour of non-agriculturist, four cancellation deeds were executed, all dated 20.05.2003. Subsequently, for whole of the parcel of the land of survey no. 441 admeasuring 13,253 sq. mts. Also, in the year 1996, two sale deeds were executed by the branches of Nathabhai Jivaniya and Veerabhai Jivaniya. Since the sale deeds were executed in favour of non-agriculturist, four cancellation deeds were executed, all dated 20.05.2003. Subsequently, for whole of the parcel of the land of survey no. 441 admeasuring 13,253 sq. mts. sale deed was executed by the branches of Veerabhai Jivaniya and Nathabhai Jivaniya in favour of defendant nos. 16 to 19. For a portion of land i.e. 6626 sq. mts., the sale deed came to be executed in the year 2017 by the defendant nos. 18 and 19 in favour of defendant nos. 21 and 22. 8. The plaintiffs, since were aggrieved by the execution of the partition-release deed of the year 1981 and the sale deeds executed in the year 2003 and 2017, have preferred the suit seeking their rights over the disputed land. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have provided the family tree of deceased Jivaniya Liliya Raval. In paragraphs 1 to 9 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have given the details of the disputed land and the details of their ancestors so also, the details of their death and entries posted in the revenue record. In paragraph 6, reference is to the death of the father, who passed away on 01.03.1970 and heirship entry in the record of rights dated 16.06.1971. In paragraph 10, the plaintiffs, have raised a grievance that the plaintiffs being the heir of Maganbhai Nathabhai, have the rights over the disputed land. It is claimed that after their marriage, the plaintiffs have been staying with their in-laws and defendant nos. 1 to 10 were taking care of the disputed land. The plaintiffs trusted the defendant nos. 1 to 10 and hence, never made any attempt to verify the status of the lands. - 9. It is the case of the plaintiffs that before filing of the suit somewhere in the month of October, 2022, need was felt for getting their names mutated in the revenue record and hence, steps were taken by the advocate for procuring the documents and the names of the plaintiffs were found omitted from the revenue record. A grievance therefore is raised that despite their names being there in the revenue record, have been deleted. A grievance therefore is raised that despite their names being there in the revenue record, have been deleted. It is a stand taken that inquiry was made through other family members but in absence of any proper response, the plaintiffs were compelled to file the suit. Paragraphs 11 and 12 makes a reference of proceedings before the Prant Officer. Paragraph 12, reiterates about the execution of the registered partition-release deed dated 01.09.1989 and the entries in the revenue record. Allegation is made that in the partition-release deed the plaintiffs have never signed and the thumb impressions of the plaintiffs have been fabricated and by committing forgery, the registered partition-release deed has been executed. Paragraph 13 of the plaint makes a reference of the sale deed executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 11. Collusion is alleged and in paragraph 14, reference is made of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar & Krushi Panch. 10. In paragraph 15, averments are made about the proceedings initiated under the provision of section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the details of the order passed by the Mamlatdar directing the parties to restore the land to its original position. In subsequent paragraphs, the details are provided of the orders passed by the revenue authorities, the stay granted by the Deputy Collector and the proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In paragraph 20, reference is made of the sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 12 to 15 coupled with the details of the entries posted in the revenue record and the rejection thereof. In subsequent paragraphs, reference is also made of the sale deeds executed in the year 2003 in favour of the defendants. The sale deeds which have been executed from time to time in favour of the defendants, is claimed to have been executed by keeping the plaintiffs in dark. No payments, let alone the consideration have been paid to the plaintiffs. - 11. In paragraph 26 it is alleged that the sale deed which has been executed in favour of defendant nos. 16 to 19 is without any consideration and no payment has been made. Paragraph 28 also makes a reference of the sale deed of the year 2003 for some parcel of the land. Similarly, in paragraph 29, it is alleged that defendant nos. 16 to 19 is without any consideration and no payment has been made. Paragraph 28 also makes a reference of the sale deed of the year 2003 for some parcel of the land. Similarly, in paragraph 29, it is alleged that defendant nos. 16, 17, 19 and 20 by taking advantage of the false and fabricated documents got the durasti done in the revenue record. Averments are also made to the effect that the registered sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 17 and 19 qua 6626 sq. mts. is also based on false and fabricated documents. So is the stand taken for the sale deed executed in favour of defendant nos. 21 and 22. Paragraph 31 makes a reference of the steps taken for the purpose of conversion of the land and the order passed by the Collector granting NA permission vide order dated 24.07.2017 and the entry in connection with the said order posted in the revenue record. Steps taken by the defendant nos. 21 and 22 for removal of the restrictions also finds place in the plaint and the order passed granting NA permission in the year 2019 and the consequential entry in the revenue record. - 12. With this, the plaintiffs have averred about the cause of action that arose to file the suit. The prayers are therefore seeking undivided share in the disputed land. Essentially, allegation is made that the partition-release deed has been executed without there being any consent of the plaintiffs, as they have not put their signatures and the thumb impressions, are forged and fabricated. With this, the challenge has been laid to the partition-release deed and further prayers are for challenging the sale deed executed in the year 2003 in favour of defendant nos. 16 to 19, the sale deed dated 17.03.2008 and the sale deed dated 25.04.2017 executed in favour of defendant nos. 21 and 22. The prayers in the suit are for declaring the plaintiffs as owners of the undivided share of Maganbhai Nathabhai as indicated in paragraph 2. Possession is also sought for of the disputed land. 13. Before adverting to the judgment, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs in paragraph 10 have given the reason which led to the filing of the suit. Possession is also sought for of the disputed land. 13. Before adverting to the judgment, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs in paragraph 10 have given the reason which led to the filing of the suit. According to the plaintiffs, they are married and were staying with their in-laws and the defendant nos.1 to 10 were taking care of the disputed land. It is not in dispute and nobody’s case that the plaintiffs are not residing in Ahmedabad for, as per the cause-title in the suit, the plaintiffs are resident of Taluka-Daskroi, District Ahmedabad. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiffs for almost forty years did not take any steps to ascertain the status of the land or how the land is being managed, except offering the vague excuse of trusting the defendant nos. 1 to 10 who were taking care of the disputed land. Further reason offered in the plaint is that few years ago, around October, 2020, the plaintiffs were desirous of getting the heirship entry posted in the revenue record and steps were taken. Upon procuring the documents, it was revealed that their names were deleted. Such stand is not in sync with the documents produced together with the plaint. - 14. Undisputedly, the father of the plaintiffs passed away on 01.03.1970 and heirship entry no. 1281 was posted in the revenue record on 16.06.1971, mutating the names of heirs of Maganbhai Nathabhai including the plaintiffs. Therefore, their names were already there on the revenue record and no further steps were necessitated in the year 2020 in connection with the same. The said excuse or explanation is as vague as it can be. In the same paragraph, the plaintiffs have also averred that they tried to find out from the family members; however, it is unclear who those family members were and what information was provided to the plaintiffs. In other words, the averments made in the paragraph 10 are vague and without any substance. - 15. So far as the release deed is concerned, it is evident that a registered partition-release deed was executed between the family members in respect of 6626 sq. mts. of the land. The said partition-release deed bears the thumb impressions of the parties thereto, i.e. family members of the plaintiffs as well as plaintiffs themselves. - 15. So far as the release deed is concerned, it is evident that a registered partition-release deed was executed between the family members in respect of 6626 sq. mts. of the land. The said partition-release deed bears the thumb impressions of the parties thereto, i.e. family members of the plaintiffs as well as plaintiffs themselves. A grievance has been raised that the plaintiffs did not put their thumb impressions. However, this grievance has been duly considered by the learned Judge and why it cannot be accepted. In paragraph 7, the learned Judge has observed that as per the registered partition-release deed, not only the plaintiffs but, also the brothers and sisters of the plaintiffs have also relinquished their rights in favour of defendant no. 1. The deed, at page no. 8, clearly shows that the registered deed was prepared by Shantilal Parikh & Co. and wherever the parties were capable of affixing their signatures, they have done so. Where the parties were unable to put the signatures, their thumb impressions were obtained as per their statement. The thumb impressions were affixed in the presence of one Mr. I.S. Raval. While putting the thumb impression, the willingness of the parties was ascertained and the same is recorded in vernacular. With regard to the plaintiffs, it is recorded that their thumb impressions were affixed as per their own statements. Therefore, the learned Judge concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegation to the contrary are difficult to believe. 16. Subsequently, entry no. 1653 was posted in the village form no. 6 and the said entry clearly reflects the factum of execution of the partition-release deed and the receipt of the amount in lieu thereof. Pertinently, the partition-release deed was annexed with the plaint, based on which the learned Judge opined that the document is a registered one and that no steps had been taken for nearly forty years. Suddenly in the year 2020, the plaintiffs sought to record the heirship entry of which, there is no clear pleading pleaded by the plaintiffs. The partition-release deeds were executed by members of both branches, namely, Natahbhai Jivaniya and Veerabahi Jivaniya. One partition-release deed is related to a portion of survey no. 441 and for the land admeasuring 6626 sq. mts. and based on which entry no.1651 was posted whereas entry no. 1653 pertains to another partition-release deed executed by the branch of Nathabhai Jivaniya. The partition-release deeds were executed by members of both branches, namely, Natahbhai Jivaniya and Veerabahi Jivaniya. One partition-release deed is related to a portion of survey no. 441 and for the land admeasuring 6626 sq. mts. and based on which entry no.1651 was posted whereas entry no. 1653 pertains to another partition-release deed executed by the branch of Nathabhai Jivaniya. It is thus evident from the record that as per the partition-release deeds, the concerned family members had relinquished their rights in favour of Somabhai Nathabhai who subsequently executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.11. - 17. Pertinently, various sale deeds have been executed thereafter. To begin with, two sale deeds, both dated 09.08.1996 were executed by two branches. On 20.05.2003, four cancellation deeds, were executed, cancelling previous transactions. On the same date, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of defendant nos. 16 to 19 for a parcel of land. It is not in dispute that in the year 2017, another sale deed was executed by defendant nos. 18 and 19 in favour of defendant nos. 21 and 22. Necessary entries pertaining to these transactions have been posted in the revenue record. Therefore, given the passage of time and the numerous transactions during the period, it is difficult to accept the contention that the plaintiffs, who are residents of district Ahmedabad remained unaware of such transactions. It has also been brought to the notice that there is ongoing construction, which is on the verge of completion. In light of this, the theory propounded by the plaintiffs, is nothing more than clever drafting with the intent to overcome the bar of limitation which, if otherwise invoked, would have resulted in an adverse order against the plaintiffs. 18. Adverting to the judgment, it is pertinent to note that the learned Judge has carefully considered the averments made in the plaint. After analysing each aspect, the Court was of the considered view that it is difficult to believe that the plaintiffs for nearly forty years took no steps and sudden need which is claimed to have arisen in the year 2020 is not credible and was not accepted. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the pleadings and more particularly, those in paragraph 10, are vague and devoid of any substance. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the pleadings and more particularly, those in paragraph 10, are vague and devoid of any substance. Additionally, the Court addressed the issue, noting that it was a registered document and corresponding entries were duly recorded in the revenue record. With this, and considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments, the learned Judge concluded by observing that the suit seeking partition or share, which had already been relinquished in the year 1981, would be barred by the provisions of Article 58 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963. It is opined that partition-release deed was of the year 1981 and even if the limitation period of three years were to be applied, it would have expired on 22.01.1985, since the corresponding entry was certified on 22.01.1982 in the revenue record. Accordingly, the suit ought to have been instituted within the limitation period; however, since it was not filed, filing the suit after a lapse of forty years would clearly be barred by limitation. - 19. Mr.Sikander Saiyed, learned Advocate was unable to distinguish the judgment or the settled legal position nor could he demonstrate as to how the principle would not apply to the facts of the present case. Fraud is alleged, mere allegation is not sufficient. It is incumbent upon the party making such allegation to furnish specific and detailed particulars. Vague averments alone are insufficient to infer the commission of fraud. In the case on hand, it is stated that the defendant nos. 1 to 10 in collusion with each other have fabricated forged documents. However, the said averments are without any basis or proof. If the party wishes to rely upon the allegation of fraud, it is incumbent upon such party to clearly state the particulars of fraud with precision and supporting facts. An allegation of fraud is serious and it cannot be viewed lightly as it carries significant legal consequences. Even otherwise, it is a well settled legal position that mere stating in the plaint that the fraud has been played, would not suffice unless the allegation is specifically averred. Permitting such a vague and unsubstantiated allegation would bring the suit within the limitation, which otherwise would be impermissible. - 20. At this juncture, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Thru. Permitting such a vague and unsubstantiated allegation would bring the suit within the limitation, which otherwise would be impermissible. - 20. At this juncture, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Thru. Legal Representatives and Ors. (supra) is worth referring to. It is well settled that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The power may be exercised at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial. Paragraphs 23 to 28 of the judgment, read thus:- “23. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the plaint and documents filed therewith, as also the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties. 23.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: “11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the plaint and documents filed therewith, as also the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties. 23.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: “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 in 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 written 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 supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevent by any cause of exceptional nature for correction 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.” (emphasis supplied) 23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. 23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. 23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. 23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words : “12. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.” 23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 23.6. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint2, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. 23.7. Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under : - “14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.– (1)Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” (emphasis supplied) 23.8. Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. 23.10 At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. 23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V.Sea Success I which reads as: “139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.” 23.12. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.” 23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.5 the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact.whether the allegations are true in fact. 23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 23.14. The power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra.7 The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case. 23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint. 24. “Cause of action” means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit. 24.1. In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam this Court held : “24. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit. 24.1. In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam this Court held : “24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an 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” (emphasis supplied) 24.2 In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.9 this Court held that while considering an application under Order VII 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 : - “5. …The learned Munsiff 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 O. VII, R. 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 …” (emphasis supplied) 24.3. Subsequently, in ITC Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint. 24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal11 held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court. 25. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court. 25. The LIMITATION ACT , 1963 prescribes a time-limit for the institution of all suits, appeals, and applications. Section 2(j) defines the expression “period of limitation” to mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suits, appeals or applications. Section 3 lays down that every suit instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed even though limitation may not have been set up as a defence. If a suit is not covered by any specific article, then it would fall within the residuary article. 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 limitation 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. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., 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. 28. 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. 28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words “right to sue” means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.” 21. The celebrated principle enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & anr. reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 has been discussed. It has been held that the court must remember that if on a meaningful reading – 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 should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, 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. The attempt on the part of the plaintiffs in raising grievance against the registered partition-release deed, and the averments made in furtherance thereof is nothing but a result of the clever drafting only with a view to cover up the limitation so as to avoid adverse order. - 22. Apt would also be the judgment in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) Thru Legal Heirs(supra) (supra). In the case before the Apex Court the suit was filed almost after 22 years raising the grievance against the gift deed. - 22. Apt would also be the judgment in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) Thru Legal Heirs(supra) (supra). In the case before the Apex Court the suit was filed almost after 22 years raising the grievance against the gift deed. The Apex Court, was of the opinion that the court below and the High Court committed an error in not rejecting the plaint considering the facts of the case. The Apex Court, in paragraphs 7 to 9, are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to the facts of the case in hand and the averments in the plaint, we are of the opinion that both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff himself along with his brother. The deed of gift was a registered gift deed. The execution of the gift deed is not disputed by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift and therefore the same is not binding on him. However, it is required to be noted that for approximately 22 years, neither the plaintiff nor his brother (who died on 15.12.2002) claimed at any point of time that the gift deed was showy deed of gift. One of the executants of the gift deed – brother of the plaintiff during his lifetime never claimed that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift. It was the appellant herein - original defendant who filed the suit in the year 2001 for partition and the said suit was filed against his brothers to which the plaintiff was joined as defendant No. 10. It appears that the summon of the suit filed by the defendant being T.S. (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 was served upon the Defendant No.10- plaintiff herein in the year 2001 itself. Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003. It appears that the summon of the suit filed by the defendant being T.S. (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 was served upon the Defendant No.10- plaintiff herein in the year 2001 itself. Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003. Even from the averments in the plaint, it appears that during these 22 years i.e. the period from 1981 till 2001/2003, the suit property was mortgaged by the appellant herein-original defendant and the mortgage deed was executed by the defendant. Therefore, considering the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) and others, as stated above, and as the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 8. At this stage, it is required to be noted that, as such, the plaintiff has never prayed for any declaration to set aside the gift deed. We are of the opinion that such a prayer is not asked cleverly. If such a prayer would have been asked, in that case, the suit can be said to be clearly barred by limitation considering Article 59 of the LIMITATION ACT and, therefore, only a declaration is sought to get out of the provisions of the LIMITATION ACT , more particularly, Article 59 of the LIMITATION ACT . The aforesaid aspect has also not been considered by the High Court as well as the learned trial Court. 9. The aforesaid aspect has also not been considered by the High Court as well as the learned trial Court. 9. Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original plaintiff and even the observations made by the learned trial Court as well as the High Court that the question with respect to the limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after the parties lead the evidence is concerned, as observed and held by this Court in the cases of Sham Lal alias Kuldip (supra); N.V. Srinivas Murthy (supra) as well as in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra), considering the averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.” 23. Therefore, the averments made in the plaint if are considered, they are nothing but the result of the clever drafting and therefore, the plaint has rightly been rejected by the learned Judge exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. This court finds no error committed by the court below. Therefore, the appeal lacks merits and does not deserve to be entertained and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.