Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankarlal vs Sapan on 21 April, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 21st OF APRIL, 2022
CIVIL REVISION No. 113 of 2021
Between:-
SHANKARLAL S/O SHRI
RAMNARAYAN JI MALI
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
1.
VILLAGE HATOD, TEHSIL HATOD,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
AJAYSINGH S/O SHRI JOGENDRA
SINGH OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 357
2.
PATNIPURA INDORE DISTRICT -
INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI M.A. MANSOORI, LEARNED ADVOCATE )
AND
SAPAN S/O SHRI GIRDHARI LAL
DADHICH OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
1. 629, NARENDRA TIWARI MARG,
INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR
2. INDORE, DIST INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ROHIT SHARMA, LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1)
This revision coming on for admission/orders this day, the
court passed the following:
ORDER
Being aggrieved by rejection of their application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC vide order dated 22/02/2021, passed by
Civil Judge, Class-I, Hatod, District - Indore(M.P.) in Civil Suit
No.13-A/2020, the petitioners are before this Court.
2. The ground taken by the petitioners is that no cause of action
has been disclosed in para - 4 of the plaint which has cleverly
been drafted by the plaintiff. This is a suit for Specific Performance
of Contract executed between the parties on 23/09/2011. The time
was essence of the contract and as per Article-54 of the Limitation
Act, limitation for filing such suit (suit for Specific Performance of
Contract) is 3 years while the suit has been filed in the year 2020
i.e., after 9 years. The suit filed by the respondent was clearly
barred by limitation. Therefore, the trial Court has committed
grave error in not dismissing the suit on this account.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the time
was not essence of the contract. While deciding application under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the averments made in the plaint has only
to be seen. In Para 6 and 7 of the plaint, the respondent has clearly
made averments with regard to the cause of action. He submitted
that when he came to know that the petitioner had sold the disputed
land to someone else, he inquired about the same, issued a notice
to him and obtained a copy of the sale-seed executed by him in
favour of some other person and on all these dates, the cause of
action had arisen in his favour. In this case, the cause of action or
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and in such a
situation, second part of Article - 54 of the Limitation Act will
apply according to which the limitation is 3 years from the date of
refusal to honour the Contract. The petitioners have refused to
honour the Contract on 01/09/2020. Therefore, the cause of action
arose on this date or the date when the respondent came to know
about the alienation of the property in favour of respondent No.2
or from obtaining the copy of the registered sale-seed executed by
the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.2. The trial Court
has rightly observed that in such a situation, it cannot be observed
that the suit is barred by limitation, therefore, there is no scope of
interference in the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Para
6.5 and 6.7 of the judgment of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs.
Ram Prasanna Singh reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601.
5. The respondent has placed reliance on Para -15 of judgment
of Urvashiben & Anr. Vs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi
reported in (2019) 13 SCC 372.
6. Heard the parties at length and perused the record.
7. The agreement, which is the basis of the dispute, has not
been placed on record.
8. According to the pleadings, the suit has been filed for
Specific Performance of Contract which was executed after getting
full consideration amount. The averments in the plaint states that
even after receiving full consideration, the petitioner first
procrastinated execution of sale-deed and then executed sale-deed
in favour of respondent No.2. This fact came to the knowledge of
the respondent in the month of July 2020. Thereafter, he issued a
notice and in reply to the notice dated 01/09/2020, the petitioners
disclosed that they had already executed the sale-deed in favour of
respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioners obtained certified
copy thereof on 07/11/2020 and immediately filed the civil suit.
09. Thus, the averments made in the plaint supports the
contentions of the respondent and in such a situation,
Urvashiben's Case (Supra) is applicable in the case.
10. The case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh(Supra) deals with
general principles to be kept in mind while deciding the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It says that while
deciding such an application the Court has to keep in mind all
materials relevant to give rise to the cause of action which is a
bundle of facts and law. This case is clearly distinguishable on the
facts and is of no avail to the petitioners.
11. After going through the averments made in the plaint
particularly in Para - 6 and 7 of the plaint and the fact that
according to the pleadings, entire consideration amount has been
already received by the petitioners and the only part remain to be
executed is execution of the sale-deed, no case to dismiss the plaint
is made out. Therefore, the civil revision is dismissed.
12. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court are
only with an object to decide the present petition preferred by the
petitioners before this Court and it would have no impact on the
merits of the case.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
pn
Digitally signed by PREETHA NAIR
PREETHA NAIR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL,
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=5431da3716f911ecd1cb3fc6dc91ea2cacec60259cb241b9ad42416f404bb303,
pseudonym=BEA9A029360DBE02FDC86E8557A519B70B35E1A7,
serialNumber=0EC5BE08895BA17A6074239F753A38DE8188C5E65085178B87CD8C85
BA5B87CC, cn=PREETHA NAIR
Date: 2022.04.21 17:06:33 +05'30'
