[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs Smt. Sunita on 19 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5183
1 CR-1293-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 1293 of 2025
MAHESH
Versus
SMT. SUNITA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Nagar - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
1. This civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the CPC
by the applicant against the impugned order dated 1.09.2025 whereby an
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the applicant/defendant before the
learned trial Court has been dismissed.
2. The plaintiff / respondent has filed a civil suit RCS A/08/2025
before the Civil Judge, Class I, Rajpur, District Barwani, for specific
performance of contract, declaration and permanent injunction on the basis
of sale deed dated 23.5.2016. In that suit petitioner / defendant has filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on
the ground that suit is barred by limitation specifically stating that in the
agreement itself it was mentioned that on the basis of agreement the sale
deed will be executed within a period of six months, however that the same
has not complied with and, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation, but the
application was opposed by the plaintiff and by the impugned order the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5183
2 CR-1293-2025
application has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has
committed an error in not properly interpreting the clause in the agreement
dated 23.5.2016 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the specific
performance will take place within a period of six months from the date of
execution of agreement. Relying upon the aforesaid clause learned counsel
submits that plaint should have been rejected. Counsel placed reliance on the
judgment ITC Limited V/s. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Ors .
reported as (1998) 2 SCC 70 , Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Union of
India & Anr. , reported as (2011) 9 SCC 126 , Manjula Chordiya & Anr. V/s.
Bharat Chordiya & Anr. reported as [2024(3) MPLJ 132, Katta Sujatha
Reddy & Anr. V/s. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd & Ors . Civil Appeal
No.5822 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (c) No.13566 of 2021), Fatbhji & Co.
& Anr. V/s. L.M. Nagpal & Ors . reported as (2015) 8 SCC 390 , Usha Devi
& Ors. V/s. Ram Kumar Singh & Ors. 2024 SCC online SC 1915, K.S.
Vidyanadam & Ors. V/s. Vairavan reported as (1997) 3 SCC 1 , Saleem Bhai
& Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported as 2003 (1) SCC 557 and
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy V/s. Syed Jalal reported as (2017) 13
SCC 174.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record
along with the impugned order (Annexure P/1).
5. To resolve the controversy involved in this case relevant Article 54
of the Limitation Act, 1963 is relevant which is reproduced as under :-
54. For Specific The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such
Three
performance of a date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that
years
contract performance is refused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5183
3 CR-1293-2025
6. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that in
case the limitation will start where the date is fixed for performance or if no
such date is fixed when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is
refused. Agreement to sell dated 23.5.2016 (Annexure A/3) whereby
defendant herein has executed agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff in
regard to his agriculture land Survey No.24/3 Rakba 2.678 hectare situated at
Village Choti Khargone Patwari Halka No.17 Tehsil Rajpur, District
Barwani. Perusal of this agreement reveals that it was assured by the
applicant that he will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff
(respondent herein) within a period of six month from the date of execution
of agreement to sell, ie., 23.5.2016, but in the aforesaid stipulated time of six
months sale deed was not executed in favour of the plaintiff. Perusal of
allegations as contained in plaint (Annexure A/2) reveal that when he
opposed respondent/plaintiff for getting execution of sale deed, he told him
that documents have been lost and since it is recovered he will get executed
sale deed but even after that when he contacted defendant, he on one ground
or the other advanced excuses for not getting the sale deed registered but he
assured that even possession has been handed over to the plaintiff and only
execution of the sale deed is remaining that will be executed as early as
possible. On enquiry it was found by the plaintiff that land agreed to sell in
his favour was mortgaged. In the meantime pandemic of Covid - 19 set in
and defendant suffered heart attack therefore, she did not press for getting
execution of sale deed. Further when plaintiff obtained certified copy of
Khasra B/1, she found that defendant has paid off loan taken on the land by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5183
4 CR-1293-2025
mortgaging the land to Axix Bank and the land was freed from mortgage on
6.5.2024. On this information she again pressed for getting execution of sale
deed and in pursuance thereof she also sent a notice dated 31.5.2024 through
her counsel and when even after that defendant did not show any willingness
in getting execution of sale deed then she filed this suit. Thus delay in filing
the suit has been explained in the plaint itself.
7. In the case of K.S. Vidyanadam & Ors. (supra) relied by the learned
counsel for the applicant - defendant it has been held that in case of contract
of sale of immovable property time is not essence of contract and suit can be
filed within the period of 3 years provided under Article 54 of the Limitation
Act but it should be performed within a reasonable time having regard to
terms of contract prescribing a time limit and nature of property. Relevant
para No.10 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted as under :-
"It has been consistently held by the courts in India, following
certain early English decisions, that in the case of agreement of
sale relating to immovable property, time is not of the essence of
the contract unless specifically provided to that effect. The period
of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act for filing a suit is
three years. From these two circumstances, it does not follow that
any and every suit for specific performance of the agreement
(which does not provide specifically that time is of the essence of
the contract) should be decreed provided it is filed within the
period of limitation notwithstanding the time limits stipulated in
the agreement for doing one or the other thing by one or the other
party. That would amount to saying that the time-limits prescribed
by the parties in the agreement have no significance or value and
that they mean nothing. Would it be reasonable to say that because
time is not made the essence of the contract, the time-limit(s)
specified in the agreement have no relevance and can be ignored
with impunity? It would also mean denying the discretion vested
in the cr.urt by both Sections 10 and 20. As held by a Constitution
Bench of this court in Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani , [1993] 1 S.C.C.
.........."it is clear that in the case of sale of immovable
property there is no presumption as to time being the essence of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5183
5 CR-1293-2025
the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract, the
court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if
the conditions are (evident)? : (1) From the express terms of the
contract; (2) from the nature of the property; and(3) from the
surrounding circumstances, for example, the object of making the
contract",
In other words, the court should look at all the relevant
circumstances including the time-limits specified in the agreement
and determine whether its discretion to grant specific performance
should be exercised."
8. In the instant case as mentioned hereinabove in the plaint,
circumstances have been narrated which have delayed execution of sale deed
and also filing of the suit.
9. It is not in dispute that power under Rule 11 of Order 7 can be
exercised for rejection of plaint if suit found to be barred by law and
manifestly vexatious and meritless, which would always depend upon facts
and circumstances of each case. When in the instant case plaint allegations
are read in totality, it is found that it is the petitioner who has by his own
false assurance delayed the execution of sale deed in pursuance of agreement
to sell executed by him and when plaintiff ultimately after clearing of loan
taken on the land by mortgaging has been cleared on 6.5.2024 she proceeded
for getting execution of the sale deed by issuing legal notice on 31.5.2024.
Thus prima facie by mere perusal of plaint allegations it cannot be inferred
that this suit is barred by law. In teeth of the provisions of limitation as
prescribed in Article 54 of Limitation Act this point of limitation cannot be
ascertained unless evidence is tendered by both the parties with respect to the
aforesaid point of limitation. The same has been taken into account by the
learned Court below while passing the impugned order wherein it has been
mentioned that point of limitation in the instant case is mixed question of fact
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5183
6 CR-1293-2025
and law, which can be decided into after recording of evidence. This Court is
of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case
the learned Court below has not committed any illegality in giving the
aforesaid finding.
10. By short of the discussion is that the learned Court below has not
committed any factual or legal error in passing the impugned order wherein
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on behalf of the petitioner
has been dismissed. In the case of Fatehji and Company (supra) plaintiff
even after knowing that agreement to sell originally to be acted by 2.12.1973
was finally extended till 1.2.1977 by the defendants but even after that suit
was filed in July 1985, therefore, it was held to be barred by limitation but
facts of the case in hand are totally different, therefore this judgment is of no
help for the petitioner. The judgments of Khatri Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
Manjula Chordiya & Anr. (supra) and Saleem Bhai (supra) have been passed
in the peculiar factual matrix of those cases wherein relief of declaration was
sought, which was covered by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which is not
a case in the case in hand therefore, the judgments have no bearing on the
facts of the present case.
11. Resultantly, this petition is devoid of any substance, fails and is
hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
SS/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5183
7 CR-1293-2025
