Gujarat High Court
Nalinbhai Kanubhai Patel vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 510 of 2024
==========================================================
NALINBHAI KANUBHAI PATEL
Versus
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AR THACKER(888) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SHIVANG A THACKER(7424) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 01/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed challenging the order dated 14.08.2023, passed by the 3 rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.312 of 2020, whereby an application vide Exh.32 filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.
2. For sake of brevity, the parties herein are referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts arising in filing the present application are that;
3.1 The plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No312 of 2020, wherein it is the case of the plaintiff that as the defendant approached the plaintiff Corporation offering the suit property on lease for construction of petrol-pump and as terms of the contract were Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined finalised on 23.10.2018 in the meeting that was held between the officers of the plaintiff and defendant, the suit has been filed for specific performance of the said understanding arrived at between the parties to the suit and, therefore, direction has been sought to declare that the plaintiff is entitled for getting agreement entered into with the defendant and for a direction to the defendant to perform his part of the agreement and all duties necessary for construction of the petrol-pump and for further direction that the defendant to accept monthly rent as agreed between the parties as per the meeting held on 23.10.2018 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, alienating, mortgaging and / or transferring the property in any manner.
3.2 The defendant appeared in the suit and filed an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, mainly on the ground that the suit is hopelessly time barred on the ground of limitation and that there is no cause of action that is arising for the plaintiff to file the present suit and after hearing the parties, 20 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara rejected the said application. Hence, the present revision application.
SUBMISSIONS OF ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT:
4.1 Learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that suit is hopelessly time barred as the plaintiff himself has relied on Public Advertisement published on 25.02.2017 and the suit that has been filed is on 03.10.2020 and, therefore, as the suit is filed beyond the period of limitation, the suit is required to be rejected. Learned Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined advocate for the defendant has also drawn attention of this Court to the facts stated in the plaint, more particularly on the fact that there is no concluded contract between the parties and the relief that has been sought by the plaintiff in the suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to get the agreement entered into with the defendant and, therefore, as there is no concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendant there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file present suit and, therefore, suit is required to be rejected.
4.2 Learned advocate for the defendant has drawn attention of this Court to the public advertisement which has been produced vide Exh.4/1 in Civil Suit No.312 of 2020 wherein property of the defendant is not mentioned. It has also been argued by learned advocate for the defendant that even the bare reading of the said public advertisement clearly states that the offer, if any, has to be made on or before 27.03.2017 and any offer made thereafter could not be considered and, therefore, as no offer was made by the defendant on or before 27.03.2017, the plaintiff could not have sought for specific performance of the contract with respect to the letter written by defendant on 23.10.2018. The said offer was subject too formalities which were to be completed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff having not completed the said formalities, the plaintiff cannot file suit for specific performance of executing the said offer made by the defendant vide letter dated 23.10.2018.
4.3 It has also been argued that in the said offer, it has also been stated that the defendant shall submit all documents for verification Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined of title and that both the plaintiff and the defendants shall cooperate with each other for execution and registration of lease-deed and that proposal for lease of land will be subject to title clearance and approval from the Legal department of plaintiff and there is no documentary proof to suggest that there is any approval from the Legal Department, the plaintiff could not have filed suit for specific performance.
4.4 It has also been argued that document produced vide Exh.4/3 which is Minutes of Meeting held on 23.10.2018 also does not bear signature of the defendant and, therefore, plaintiff could not have relied upon the said document. It has also been argued that other than the offer dated 23.10.2018, there is no communication by the defendant and, therefore, plaintiff could not have sought for any relief pursuant to the said offer made by the defendant and in that view of the matter it has been argued that learned trial Court could not have rejected the application filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and hence the said application is required to be allowed and the order that has been passed rejecting the said application is required to be quashed and set aside.
SUBMISSIONS OF ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF:
5.1 Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent - original plaintiff has mainly argued that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court could only look at the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint. The fact remains that the case of the plaint is not only based on public advertisement published on 25.02.2017, but the suit is filed on the basis of offer Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined given by the defendant on 23.10.2018, pursuant to the minutes of meeting held on 23.10.2018 and in the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically stated that cause of action to file the suit has arisen on 23.10.2018, when the offer was accepted by the plaintiff Corporation and that the plaintiff was acting in furtherance of getting permission necessary for construction of petrol pump based on the defendant's proposal. In the plaint, the plaintiff has also stated that it is only since last two months of filing of the suit that the defendant had been non- cooperative. Moreover, learned advocate for the plaintiff has also drawn attention of this Court to the public notice and the offer letter that has been produced vide Exh.4/1 and 4/2. It has been argued that though the signature of defendant is not taken in the minutes of meeting, letter that has been given by the defendant on 23.10.2018, which is produced vide Exh.4/2, categorically suggests about negotiation and discussion which were held on 23.10.2018 and it also suggests about points that were discussed and agreed and, therefore, it cannot be stated that defendant was not aware about minutes of meeting. Moreover, it has been argued that it is not case of the defendant that letter dated 23.10.2018 has not been sent by defendant to plaintiff giving offer with respect to property in dispute. It has also been argued that till filing of the suit there is no documentary evidence to prove that defendant has refused specific performance of offer that was made by the defendant on 23.10.2018 and the fact remains that plaintiff having stated that it is only two months before filing of the suit that the defendant has refused specific performance of offer made by plaintiff on 23.10.2018 and, therefore, it cannot be said that suit is barred on the ground of limitation.
Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined 5.2 Learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that the
cause of action to file present suit on different dates and more particularly on 23.10.2018 when a meeting was held with respect to suit property and that the plaintiff was in process of getting permissions, with respect to construction of petrol pump and the fact that agreement was arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant on 23.10.2018 pursuant to which defendant had sent letter with respect to giving property on lease and, therefore, it cannot be said that no cause of action has been arisen for the plaintiff to file present suit and hence it has been argued that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
ANALYSIS:-
6.1 Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having considered the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint, the fact remains that the defendant has filed an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on two points i.e. (i) the plaint is hopelessly time barred and (ii) no cause of action has arisen for the plaintiff to file the present suit.
6.2 In this background, this Court is required to decide the issue on the point of limitation. The suit that has been filed by the plaintiff is with respect to the advertisement published on 25.02.2017 and though time limit for responding to the said public advertisement was valid till 27.03.2017, the fact remains that it is the plaintiff's case that on 23.10.2018, meeting was held between the officers of the plaintiff and defendant and pursuant to the said meeting, letter was written by the defendant whereby defendant had agreed to lease the property Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined admeasuring 1500 sq yard to the plaintiff and there were certain conditions that were mentioned in the said letter. It is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the said offer, plaintiff acted upon the same for getting all permission necessary for construction of petrol pump.
It is also the case of the plaintiff that only before two months before filing of the suit, defendant did not cooperate in getting lease-deed executed. In this background, the suit that has been filed by the plaintiff is for specific performance of the letter written by the defendant on 23.10.2018 and it is the case of the plaintiff that just before two months of filing the suit, the defendant has become non- cooperative. In this background, provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 more particularly Article 54 shall have to be considered, which reads as under:
Artilce Description of Period of Time from which suit limitation period begins to run 54 For specific Three years The date fixed for the performance performance, or, if of a no such date is fixed, contract. when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused 6.3 Therefore, in the present case in the letter dated 23.10.2018, no date is fixed for the purpose and the said date is subject to approval of getting permission for construction of petrol pump and in the present case it is only before two months of filing of the suit that the defendant has been non-cooperative, the suit does not appear to be hopelessly time barred and, therefore, trial Court has rightly held that Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined suit cannot be said to be time barred from plain reading of the plaint.
6.4 Second issue that has been raised by the defendant is with respect to the fact that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. The plaintiff has in the plaint specifically mentioned about letter dated 23.10.2018, whereby the defendant had specifically agreed about entering into a lease-deed with respect to construction of petrol pump and moreover for ascertaining the same the Court cannot enter into question of facts or law. Moreover, the Court is not required to make elaborate inquiry into question of law or fact and the Court is restricted to ascertain whether on the allegation a cause of action is shown. Moreover, while deciding whether plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially question of fact and the same can be found out from reading the plaint itself and for the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety has to be held correct and the test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in its entirety, decree would be passed. In the present case, the plaintiff has relied on minutes of meeting and has specifically stated that the defendant had agreed to lease the property to the plaintiff and plaintiff has filed for specific performance and, therefore, it cannot be said that suit that has been filed by the plaintiff is without any cause of action and, therefore, trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
6.5 Learned advocate for the plaintiff relies on following judgments:
(i) AIR 1971, SC 2295, Union of India vs. M/s.Bhimsen Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined Walaiti Ram;
(ii) 2013 (5) SCC 182, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Om Prakash Sharma;
(iii) AIR 1972 SC 1242, Haridwar Singh vs. Bagun Sumbrui The above judgments will not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the facts of the said cases are based on auction purchase and that the offer that was given was not accepted by other side, whereas in the present case, suit is filed with respect to specific performance of minutes of meeting held on 23.10.2018 and the letter issued by the defendant dated 23.10.2018 and it is the case of the plaintiff that all the terms of the contract were finalised between the parties and reduced in writing in the form of minutes of meeting and letter dated 23.10.2018, which has been signed by the defendant also suggests about discussion and negotiation that has taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant.
6.6 Insofar as judgments relied upon by plaintiff reported in (i) AIR 2024 SC 1808 in the case of Level 9 Biz Pvt Ltd vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing And Urban Development Authority, (ii) 2024 GUJHC 62095 [2024 (0) AIJEL - HC - 249499] in case of Stork Medi-tek Private Limited vs. Deendayal Port Authority and (iii) AIR 2017 SC 882 in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd., are concerned, they are on letter of intent and that letter of intent is merely expression of Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/510/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined intention to enter into contract. Here, in the present case, plaintiff relies on minutes of meeting dated 23.10.2018 and it is the case of the plaintiff that terms of contract were existed on 23.10.2018 and the said fact cannot be discarded while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In view of the aforesaid fact, fact remains that the suit that has been filed by plaintiff is for specific performance of the minutes of meeting entered into on 23.10.2018 and letter written by the defendant on 23.10.2018.
CONCLUSION:
7. Considering the submissions made and after examining the findings of the Court on the issue raised in the suit upon examination of the order of the Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity and perversity or impropriety in the findings recorded by the Court below and, therefore, the present application requires to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:49:48 IST 2025