VIVEK CHAUDHARY,J. - (1.) Present petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow and order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow. By the first order, learned Additional Civil Judge has rejected an application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and by the second order, learned Additional District Judge has affirmed the order of learned Additional Civil Judge and rejected the civil revision also.
(2.) Facts of the case, as set up by the petitioner-defendant, are that a sale deed was executed on 08.01.1974 by late Sri Bechu, with regard to agricultural plots no. 234 and 249 situated at Village-Vijaipur, P.S, Gomtinagar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow, in favour of petitioner-defendant and late Sri Servendra Shekhar Singh, his brother. On the basis of the said sale deed, by order dated 31.08.1974 passed by the revenue authorities, names of petitioner-defendant and his brother were duly mutated in the revenue records. In the year 1984 the State Government acquired the said two plots along with other surrounding lands and in the year 1985 an award was also made. Sri Bechu expired on 10.05.1999. No objection to the sale deed or mutation was ever made by Sri Bechu till he expired. After about 12 years of his death and after 37 years of execution of the sale deed, his sons, namely Sri Ram Kumar and Om Prakash, respondents-plaintiffs filed a Regular Suit No.112 of 2011, claiming that the said sale deed executed on 08.01.1974 is a forged document and does not contain the thumb impression of their late father. They prayed for: (a) cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.01.1974 and (b): "a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his heirs, agent and any person claiming rights through him, for interfering the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in suit". The plaint was filed on 27.01.2011. Relevant paragraphs of the plaint, for our purposes, are as follows:- "6. That when this fact came into knowledge of the plaintiffs regarding the names of the defendant and his Late brother Servendra Shekhar Singh entered in the revenue records, then they moved an application for recall of the order of mutation in the Court of Tehsildar Lucknow but the same was rejected by Tehsildar Lucknow on 22.04.2008 (Twenty Two April Two Thousand Eight), against the said order the plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the court of S.D.O. Lucknow which is pending for final disposal. 7. That the real brother of the defendant Servendra Shekhar Singh died and it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the said Servendra Shekhar Singh died unmarried. 8. That on 10.07.2009 (Ten July Two Thousand Nine), the defendant along with associates came at the aforesaid plots of the land of the plaintiffs, tried to make constructions over the said plots of land, the plaintiff No.1 reached at the plots and objected the acts of the defendants, the defendant abused the plaintiff No.1 in a filthy language and threatened the plaintiff No.1 to do away his life, if he intervened into the matter but on the intervention of the village people the defendant along with associates ran away. Thereafter the plaintiff No.1 moved applications to the Chief Minister, S.P. Lucknow and Inspector P.S. Gomtinagar, Lucknow but no action has been taken by the police of P.S. Gomtinagar, Lucknow. When this act came in the knowledge of the defendant that the plaintiff No.1 moved applications against the defendant, then again on 31.07.2009 (Thirty One July Two Thousand Nine) the defendant along with another person entered into the house of the plaintiffs and beaten the plaintiff No.1, abused in a filthy language and threatened the plaintiff No.1 that if he will not pressed his applications, the defendant will to do away the life of the plaintiff No.1 and shall burn the entire family. 9. That when no action has been taken by the police, the plaintiff No.1 moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the proper court of law on 07.08.2009 (Seven August Two Thousand Nine). On the said application the Court No.36 passed an order on 27.08.2009 (Twenty Seven August Two Thousand Nine) and through this order the Hon'ble Court directed S.O. Gomtinagar, Lucknow to register the case against the accused persons and to investigate into the matter. Against the said order, the defendant has not filed any revision but D.G.C. Criminal filed revision in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow now which is pending in the court of special judge S.C.S.T. act Lucknow. In the said revision on behalf of revisionist the photocopy of the aforementioned sale deed had been filed on 04.06.2010 (Four June Two Thousand Ten), then the plaintiffs have got the knowledge of the sale deed in question, getting the knowledge of the said sale deed, the plaintiff No.1 applied for certified copy of the same and he got the certified copy of the said sale deed on 11.01.2011 (Eleven January Two Thousand Eleven), thereafter the plaintiffs have got knowledge of the sale deed and its contents prior to this the plaintiffs have got no knowledge of the sale deed in question. The plaintiffs have already mentioned above that the said sale deed is forged one. The father of the plaintiffs had never executed the alleged sale deed and nor he put his thumb impression on the said sale deed. The defendant and his brother Late Servendra Shekhar Singh had got prepared the said sale deed in question and produced any other person before the Sub-registrar in place of father of the plaintiffs for the purposes of registration and as such by fraudulence means they got it registered in their favour. 10. That the father of the plaintiffs before his death had told to the plaintiffs that he had not executed any sale deed nor he put his thumb impression or any sale paper. 11. That the father of the plaintiffs was by caste Harijan (Pasi) the plaintiffs are also Harijan (Pasi) by caste, poor and illiterate persons. The plaintiffs are enjoying peaceful possession as a owners and land lords over the said plots of land. The father of the plaintiffs had made plantation of Eucalyptus trees over the said plots of land and the said trees now grown up and still are standing over the said plots of land. 17. That the cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs and against the defendant on 10.07.2009 (Ten July Two Thousand Nine) when the defendant came at the plots of land in question and tried to make constructions over it, on 31.07.2009 (Thirty One July Two Thousand Nine) when the defendant entered into the house of the plaintiffs, abused and threatened the plaintiff No.1 with dire consequences and on 04.06.2010 (Four June Two Thousand Ten) when the revisionist in criminal revision No.300/09 filed the photocopy of the disputed sale deed and on 11.01.2011 (Eleven January Two Thousand Eleven) when the plaintiff No.1 obtained the certified copy of the disputed sale deed mentioned above in village Vijaipur P.S. Gomtinagar Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."
(3.) The petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 11.02.2011. In his application petitioner-defendant took objection with regard to the suit being barred by limitation, as it was instituted after more than 37 years of the execution of the registered sale deed executed on 08.01.1974. Another objection taken was that the suit is abuse of process of law and same is a frivolous and vexatious litigation and hence, the plaint ought be rejected outright. Petitioner-defendant also filed an application under Order 10 CPC read with Order 19 CPC on 27.04.2012. In the said application, petitioner-defendant also alleged that respondents-plaintiffs have concealed government notification with regard to acquisition of the land and court is bound to take judicial notice thereof. In the application, petitioner-defendant stated that notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 6, were issued on 04.12.1984 and an award was made on 25.02.1987. He submits that thereafter in the Khatauni, the possession of Ujarioan Aavasiya Yojana, i.e., the name of the scheme for which the land was acquired, is noted and these facts have been concealed by the respondents-plaintiffs. He prayed that the respondents-plaintiffs be summoned for getting their statement recorded under Order 10 CPC.;