Jharkhand High Court
Raju Ram vs Ejaz Ahmad on 16 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:19344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 03 of 2023
--------
1. Raju Ram, aged about 52 years,
2. Sudhir Ram, aged about 55 years,
Both S/o Late Kalo Ram and are resident of Mohalla Imli Tola,
Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Hindpiri, Dist.-Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Ejaz Ahmad, aged about 41 years,
2. Junaid Ahmad, aged about 43 years,
3. Zaid Ahmad, aged about 48 years,
All 1-3 are sons of Late Abdus Samad
4. Ishrat Ara, aged About 47 years,
5. Mosarrat Ara, aged about 41 years,
6. Kouser Fatma, aged about 36 years,
All 4-6 are D/o Late Abdus Samad
7. Zahida Khatoon, aged about 69 years, W/o Late Abdus Samad,
All are resident of Hindpiri, G.T. Road, Near Madina Masjid, P.O.
& P.S. Hindpiri, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
......Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sambit Nayak, Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate
--------
Order No. 12/ Dated:16th July, 2025
Present Civil Revision is directed against the order dated
13.12.2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-V, Ranchi in
Original Suit No. 144 of 2018 whereby and whereunder, an application
under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC filed by the
petitioner/defendant has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/opp. Parties have
instituted above suit against defendants/petitioners for following reliefs:
i. A decree directing the defendants to forthwith execute and
register the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs.
ii. In case the defendant fails to execute and register the suit
property in favour of the plaintiffs, the same may be directed to be done
through due process of the Court.
iii. The plaintiffs have further sought relief of cost of the suit
and other relief/reliefs which he may be found entitled by the court.
2025:JHHC:19344
It is alleged that plaintiffs are in possession over the suit property
since 1967 and were running a shop in the name and style "Asia Cycle
Store". Subsequently they started selling motor parts and accessories in
the name and style of "M/s. Taj Maruti Parts" and has paid rent till
October, 2017. It is further stated that in the year 1983, the deceased
husband of the defendant due to urgent need of money entered into an
agreement with the father of the plaintiffs dated 07.09.1983 for the said
shop admeasuring 367 sq. ft. situated at Imli Tola, Main Road, Ranchi
beaing MS Plot No. 694, Municipal Holding No. 389 having Pakka
Room roof by Asbestos duly registered before the Registrar at Ranchi
vide Deed No. 7490. The terms and conditions of the said agreement is
binding on the parties including the legal heirs, successors,
administrator, legal representative/nominee. It is further alleged that the
agreement dated 07.09.1983 specifically stipulates that if the land owner
wants to dispose of/transfer/sell the said property in that case he/she has
to sell/transfer to the plaintiff's father only and by way of advance, a
sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid to the defendant's husband which has been
admitted in the said agreement. It is further stated that on the death of the
original executor of the agreement dated 07.09.1983, the shop premises
has vested with the legal heirs/successors/administrator, legal
representative/nominee of respective parties which is not in dispute. The
rent has been paid by the plaintiffs without any default and the rent
receipt is also issued by defendants in the name of the said shop i.e. "Taj
Maruti Parts" till October, 2017. Thereafter, the plaintiffs paid rent for
the month of November, 2017 but no rent receipt was issued. The
plaintiffs also paid rent for the month of December, 2017 which was
refused to accept by stating that the ownership has been transferred to
Iqra Masjid Committee and the plaintiffs have to pay the rent in the
name of Iqra Masjid Committee and refused to accept the rent amount.
The plaintiffs approached the Iqra Masjid Committee and it was
informed that only verbal talk has been made with the defendants but no
agreement of sale has been executed hence it would not be proper to
accept the rent. The plaintiffs send the rent through money-order at the
address of defendants which was also refused. Again, for the month of
2025:JHHC:19344
January, 2018, rent was also sent through the money-order to the
defendants which was again refused. Thereafter, plaintiffs sent a legal
notice dated 2.2.2018 to the defendants for complying the agreement
dated 07.09.1983 but the defendants refused to accept the said notice
which was returned back to the plaintiffs. It is further alleged that the
plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform his part of
contract as per the agreement. He has also paid part of the consideration
money in advance Rs. 5000/- and as a part performance of the contract
has also received possession of the property. Plaintiffs are ready to
perform their part of the contract as per the agreement by paying the
current market price of the said property after adjustment of advance
money of Rs. 5000/- and get the sale deed registered of the property in
his name.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order
has submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the
contentions raised on behalf of the defendant in legal perspective and
passed absolutely illegal order. The petitioner/defendant appeared and
filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC for
rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground that the plaint has to be read
as a whole and if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of
cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that the
bogus litigation will end at the earliest and has relied upon reported
judgment in the case of "Madanuri Shree Ramachandra Vs. Syed
Jalan, 2017 (3) JLJR (SC) 1" and "Om Agarwal Vs. Haryana
Financial Corporation and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 317". It is further
submitted that the nature of agreement itself discloses that it is rent
agreement and not an agreement to sale. The legal dictum is that "Once
a tenant always a tenant". The registered agreement dated 07.09.1983
has been executed by the Late Husband of the defendant Baso Devi
which is merely a rent agreement on monthly basis. The document
cannot be interpreted as an agreement to sale. Therefore, the cause of
action as pleaded by the plaintiffs is fictious. Virtually, there is no cause
of action for the suit for specific performance of contract. It is further
submitted that in the registered agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs,
2025:JHHC:19344
there is no stipulation as to by which time the sale deed has to be
executed and the property be sold. The suit was filed after 30 years of the
said agreement. Therefore, it is also barred by limitation. In view of the
above argument, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the
plaint filed by the plaintiff is fit to be rejected under provisions of Order
VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opp. parties refuting the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners submitted that
the plaintiffs are inducted as tenant since 1967 and continuously paid
rent but in the year 1983, a registered agreement was entered into
between the original tenant and the father of the petitioners for payment
of rent as well as advancement of Rs. 5000/- on specific condition that
whenever the property will be sold, it will be sold to the first party tenant
only after adjusting the advance consideration amount of Rs. 5000/- from
the prevailing market price at the time of sale. The pursuance of
aforesaid agreement plaintiffs have been put under possession and have
accrued right under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The
defendants are neither accepting the rent nor executing the sale deed
rather pretended to have sold/entered into an agreement to sale with Iqra
Masjid Committee. The cause of action itself has accrued to the plaintiffs
since non-acceptance of rent and purported agreement to sale or talk of
sale with Iqra Masjid Committee since the month of October, 2017 to
January, 2018 when money-order was sent in respect of arrears of rent
was also refused. Therefore the suit rightly held to be instituted within
the period of limitation. The contested questions raised on behalf of the
plaintiffs have to be decided at the trial of the case. Therefore, there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference
in this revision which is fit to be dismissed.
5. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of rival
submissions of the parties, wherein the learned trial Court has
meticulously dealt with the averments of the plaint and also relied upon
the principles of law in the following words:"since the power conferred
on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the
conditions enumerated under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC to exercise
2025:JHHC:19344
power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to only by
reading the averments of plaint as a whole and if the Court find that
there is no cause of action for the suit or whether the suit is barred
by any law". It was further observed that any averments in the written
statement as well as contentions of the defendants are wholly immaterial
while considering the prayer of defendant for rejection of the plaint. The
learned Trial Court has also perused the averments of plaint in the light
of the impugned registered agreement dated 07.09.1983 and observed
that whether it is rent agreement or an agreement to sale cannot be
analyzed threadbare at this stage. Further, plea of defendants regarding
cause of action and limitation, it was observed that the plaint disclosed
the cause of action accrued on 10.12.2017 and 02.02.2018 and in the
impugned agreement dated 07.09.1983, wherein no time is fixed for
performance of contract. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, after coming to know about the faul play of the defendants showing
their intention to dispose of the property to any other person and refusal
of receipt of rent as well as legal notice to perform the contract, the suit
is filed within three years of the said cause of action. Therefore, on both
counts as to cause of action and the limitation, the learned trial Court has
rightly recorded the findings keeping in averments of plaint. The
substantial argument of petitioner that plaintiffs should not be given
benefit of clever drafting is not applicable in the factual aspects of this
case.
6. Considering the aforesaid aspects of this case, I do not find any
valid reason to interfere with the impugned order, and no merits in this
revision, which stands dismissed.
7. Pending I.As, if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Basant
