ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner herein/defendant No.3, challenging the order, dated 13.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.1084 of 2023 in O.S.No.11 of 2023 by the learned Principal District Judge, Vikarabad (hereinafter referred as “trial Court”), wherein the I.A.No.1084 of 2023 filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint for want of cause of action and barred by limitation, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.3 and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. Hereinafter, the parties would be referred as they were arrayed in the suit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.11 of 2023 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Vikarabad, seeking following reliefs: 1) Declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and title holders of the suit schedule property, by virtue of parental inheritance. 2) Declaring that the Sale Deed Documents No:1428 of 89 dated: 18- 07-1989 and the subsequent Sale Deed Documents No: 904 of 91 dated: 25-07-1991 and 818 of 13 dated: 23-02-2013 are illegal, impersonated, forged, fabricated and fraudulent documents, not enforceable under law cannot be acted upon, null, void, and does not bind the plaintiffs. 3) As subsequent relief, direct the Registration Office / Revenue Authorities to cancel / delete the Sale Deed Documents No. 1428/89 dated: 18-07-1989 and 904/91 dated: 25-07-1991 and 818/13 dated: 23-02-2013 from the Registration & Encumbrance Records / Books and ratify the Revenue Records accordingly. 4) And as ancillary consequential relief of delivery of the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs by ejecting the 3rd defendant, who is having only paper possession, from the suit schedule property. 5) Award mesne profits and costs of the suit, as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.1084 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint for want of cause of action and barred by limitation. 5) Award mesne profits and costs of the suit, as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.1084 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint for want of cause of action and barred by limitation. It is stated by the defendant No.3 that in the plaint, the plaintiffs pleaded their father’s name as Mohammed Abdul Sattar S/o. Mohammed Khasim but in the sale deed vide document No.1428/1989 dated 18.07.1989, the name was mentioned as Abdul Sattar @ Jani Miya. It is further stated that plaintiffs pleaded that their father has not executed the sale deed dated 18.07.1989 in favour of defendant No.1 and the same was forged and obtained through impersonation and as such all consequential sale deeds have to be declared as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs. It is the case of defendant No.3 that the cause of action shown by plaintiff is illusory created with clever drafting and the suit is barred by law of limitation and ultimately prayed for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiffs filed counter affidavit through their General Power of Attorney (GPA) opposing the relief claimed by the defendant No.3 contending that the subject I.A.No.1084 of 2023 is not maintainable and the same was filed only to drag the matter on one pretext or other and in fact, Abdul Ghani, brother of Mohammed Abdul Sattar filed O.S.No.104/1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Vikarabad, against Mohammed Abdul Sattar and plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 and the said suit was decreed on 30.03.1990 and sale deed vide document No.18.07.1989 was executed during the pendency of said suit by way of forgery and impersonation. It is specific case of plaintiffs that when there is allegation of fraud, in terms of Section 17(1) of Limitation Act, there cannot be any period of limitation and therefore, the suit was filed within the period of limitation and the application filed by the defendant No.3 is liable to be rejected. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions of both parties, dismissed the I.A.No.1084 of 2023 vide impugned order dated 13.09.2024 observing that plaintiffs not only filed suit for declaration but also sought relief of cancellation of sale deed and delivery of possession and consequential award of mesne profits and cost of the suit. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions of both parties, dismissed the I.A.No.1084 of 2023 vide impugned order dated 13.09.2024 observing that plaintiffs not only filed suit for declaration but also sought relief of cancellation of sale deed and delivery of possession and consequential award of mesne profits and cost of the suit. It was also observed by the trial Court that sofaras limitation aspect is concerned, in Para 8 of the plaint under Item No.V, the plaintiffs have alleged that three sale deeds bearing document No.1428/1989 dated 18.07.1989 and document No.904/1991 dated 25.07.1991 and document No.818/2013 dated 23.02.2013 are forged, fabricated and created by impersonation and therefore, not binding on the plaintiffs. The trial Court also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy and another vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and others , (2015) 8 SCC 331 , wherein it was observed that rejection of plaint is a step of drastic nature and while exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC only the averments made in the plaint have to be read as a whole and the stand of the defendants in written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint is wholly immaterial and that the plaint can be rejected only if the averments made therein ex facie do not disclose cause of action and on a reading thereof, the suit appears to be barred by law. The trial Court having examined the relevant material and also the suit documents dismissed the I.A.No.1084 of 2023. Hence the Civil Revision Petition. 5. A careful examination of the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 would reveal that the trial Court has considered the averments made in the plaint which prima facie disclose that the alleged sale deeds which are subject matter of the suit are said to have been executed by impersonation. It is the case of plaintiffs that their father’s name is Mohammed Abdul Sattar S/o. Mohammed Khasim and he has not executed the sale deed dated 18.07.1989. Whereas it is the case of the defendant No.3 that in the sale deed dated 18.07.1989 the name of plaintiff’s father is mentioned as Abdul Sattar @ Jani Miya. These issues are mixed question of fact which are required to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial. 6. Whereas it is the case of the defendant No.3 that in the sale deed dated 18.07.1989 the name of plaintiff’s father is mentioned as Abdul Sattar @ Jani Miya. These issues are mixed question of fact which are required to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial. 6. The second ground raised for rejection of plaint is that the plaint is barred by limitation as the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.07.1989 and the consequential sale deeds, was instituted nearly after period of 35 years. This ground is required to be examined keeping in mind the averments in the plaint and also the allegations therein that the suit documents are executed in a fraudulent manner. Here, it is apt and appropriate to extract Section 17 of the Limitation Act, which reads as follows: “17. Effect of fraud or mistake: (1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act — (a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production: Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which— (i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed. (ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made. (iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed. (2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order: Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be. 7. There is a specific allegation in the plaint that the sale deeds have been executed in fraudulent manner and impersonation. The fraud is a question of fact, which can be agitated even in collateral proceedings. It is settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. In view of the specific pleadings in the plaint that the suit documents were executed in a fraudulent manner, Section 17 of Limitation Act, would come into rescue of the plaintiffs. The suit instituted seeking multiple reliefs and with a specific allegation of fraud is not liable to be rejected for want of cause of action at the threshold. 8. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and others , (1994) 1 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that non-disclosure of relevant and material documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud. In the instant case, the allegations in the plaint are that pending adjudication of suit vide O.S.No.104 of 1996, instituted by Abdul Ghani, brother of father of plaintiffs, the suit document was executed through impersonation. The limitation and fraud would run parallel to each other and the said issues are required to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial. 9. In Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs. Sri Bala & Co . The limitation and fraud would run parallel to each other and the said issues are required to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial. 9. In Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs. Sri Bala & Co . (2025) 1 SCR 542 : 2025 INSC 42 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the law of limitation is an adjective law, containing procedural rules and does not create any right in favour of any person, but simply prescribes that the remedy can be exercised only upto a certain period but not beyond. It was further observed that the limitation Act does not confer any substantive right nor defence any right or cause of action. Unless there is a complete cause of action, limitation cannot run and there cannot be a complete cause of action unless there is a person who can sue and a person who can be sued. 10. In Central Bank of India and another vs. Smt. Prabha Jain and others , (2025) 2 SCR 263 : 2025 INSC 95 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “24. Even if we would have been persuaded to take the view that the third relief is barred by Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, still the plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. Hence, even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. In the case on hand, the first and second reliefs as prayed for are clearly not barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI ACT and are within the civil court’s jurisdiction. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.” 11. A careful analysis of above referred judgments would reveal that the power conferred under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases, particularly when a suit alleges multiple reliefs based on the claim of fraud. 12. It is relevant to state that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. The High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction only in cases where there is patent illegality, perversity, or gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, there is no such perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial Court. The High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction only in cases where there is patent illegality, perversity, or gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, there is no such perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial Court. The impugned order is reasoned and does not suffer from any legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. No costs.