AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Plaintiffs in a suit where the plaint was neither returned nor numbered are the petitioners before me. Exhibit P1 is the copy of plaint filed on 05.06.2010. Attempt of petitioners was to set aside Exts.P4 and P5, sale deed and settlement deed, respectively and for recovery of possession of the property. Petitioners filed Ext.P2, application to condone the delay of 431 days in filing the suit. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff vide Exdt.P3, order but no order has been passed on Ext.P1, plaint either rejecting it as time barred for any reason or numbering it. Leaned counsel contends that there are sufficient averments in the plaint to show that petitioners got information about fraudulent execution of Exts.P4 and P5 only by 01.10.2009 and since the suit is filed on 05.06.2010 question of limitation does not arise in view of Article 59 of the Limitation Act. It is not necessary for me to go into the question whether on the plaint averments it is barred by limitation or not. That is a matter which the learned Sub Judge has to consider.
Resultantly, Writ Petition is dismissed. However learned Sub-Judge is directed to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1, plaint as provided under law.