Nine years separated the day the plaintiff learnt of the defendants’ entries and the day he applied for certified copies. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that this gap cannot save a 2024 suit against the 1994 Sale Deeds, rejecting it at the threshold because the plaintiff’s own plaint showed that he “slept over his right”.
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has allowed a civil revision and ordered rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that a 2024 suit seeking to set aside two sale deeds executed in 1994 was ex facie barred by limitation and could not be allowed to go to trial [Raghvendra Singh v. Jitendra Singh and Others].
The order of November 3, 2026 was passed by Justice Deepak Khot in Civil Revision No. 277 of 2026, filed under Section 115 CPC against an order of the Civil Judge-I, Junior Division, Rampur Baghelan, District Satna.
Nine years of silence
The reasoning turns on what the plaintiff himself had pleaded. According to the plaint, he learnt in 2015, when he wanted to sell his land, that Survey No. 525 had been subdivided and that most of it stood recorded in the defendants’ names. Justice Deepak Khot refused to accept that fresh knowledge arrived later, observing:
“It is impracticable to believe that the respondent/plaintiff did not obtain the revenue records for almost nine years i.e. from 2015 to 2024 and that only after obtaining the said revenue records the suit was filed.”
Noting that the certified copies were applied for only on June 2, 2024, the Court held that “the respondent/plaintiff slept over his right and woke up from his deep slumber only in the year 2024.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Dahiben, N. Asha Devi and Shobha Vasant Bhoir, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had set up a “fictitious” cause of action to bring the suit within limitation. Since the challenge came “after 30 years”, the suit “cannot be allowed to be prosecuted further just to harass the defendants.”
From Rampur Baghelan to Jabalpur
The litigation began with suit RCSA-118/2024, filed by respondent Jitendra Singh before the Rampur Baghelan court for a declaration and permanent injunction over land in Village Richhari, Tehsil Rampur Baghelan. He asked the court to declare the revenue entries in the defendants’ favour void, to set aside two sale deeds dated April 30, 1994 and July 15, 1994 executed by the late Sher Mohammad, and to declare him owner and Bhumiswami of Survey No. 525, measuring 6.47 acres.
One of the defendants, petitioner Raghvendra Singh, applied under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint as time-barred. The trial court dismissed that application on December 12, 2025, and the revision followed.
What the plaint admitted
After the 2015 discovery, the plaintiff sold the portion recorded in his own name through a registered deed of February 4, 2015. The mutation in the defendants’ favour dated back to 2000-2001. He claimed to have obtained certified copies of the sale deeds only on June 7, 2024, and filed the suit on August 6, 2024.
For the petitioner, the argument was that the plaint’s own averments made the suit ex facie time-barred, and the defendants should not be forced through a full trial. The plaintiff answered that a plaint has to be read as a whole, that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and that as a non-executant he was not required to seek cancellation of the deeds.
Certified copies and the clock
Each of the plaintiff’s precedents was distinguished, among them Biswanath Banik, Chhotanben, Daya Singh, P. Kumarakurubaran, Karam Singh and Hussain Ahmed Choudhury. Reading a plaint as a whole, the Court said, does not stop a court from considering the specific admissions in it. In Chhotanben, the suit was filed within two days of a refusal, and in Karam Singh within three years of mutation, with a prayer for possession that the present plaintiff never made. On the certified copies, the Court held:
“In the present case, despite acquiring knowledge of the subdivision and the defendants’ entries in 2015, the respondent/plaintiff did not obtain the certified copies of the relevant documents until June 2024. The mere subsequent procurement of certified copies cannot, in the facts of the present case, automatically extend or revive the period of limitation.”
It added that Hussain Ahmed Choudhury dealt with cancellation of an instrument under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and “does not lay down any proposition that a non-executant is exempted from the law of limitation while seeking a declaration that a sale deed is void or not binding upon him.”
The result
The revision was allowed. The trial court’s order of December 12, 2025 was set aside, the Order 7 Rule 11 application was allowed and the suit was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Why the judgment matters
Property suits challenging decades-old transfers often plead a recent “date of knowledge” tied to obtaining certified copies or revenue extracts. This ruling shows that courts can look at the plaintiff’s own admissions at the Order 7 Rule 11 stage and end such suits early where those admissions show knowledge long before the limitation period ran out. It also reiterates that the late collection of documents, by itself, does not restart limitation, and that a non-executant seeking to have a sale deed declared void is still bound by the law of limitation.
Case Title: Raghvendra Singh v. Jitendra Singh and Others [Civil Revision No. 277 of 2026]
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:88753
Bench: Justice Deepak Khot, High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Ramanath Dwivedi
For Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff: Advocate Ayush Tiwari
For State: Panel Lawyer Sandeep Vyas
![[NEET UG 2024 Controversy] NTA Seeks Transfer of All HC Cases to SC: Delhi HC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image-92.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
