Smt Meera Tomar vs Ashish Pratap Singh on 13 January, 2026

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia

                           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1325




                                                                         1                C.R. No. 917 of 2025



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                        AT G WA L I O R
                                                             BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA



                                               CIVIL REVISION No. 917 of 2025
                                                   SMT MEERA TOMAR
                                                         Versus
                                            ASHISH PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS


                           Appearance:
                                 Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate for applicant.
                                 Shri Gaurav Mishra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
                                 Shri Imran Khan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.


                                                Reserved on          :       19/12/2025
                                                Pronounced on        :       13/01/2026

                                                              ORDER

This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against the order dated 14/8/2025 passed by XXIII District Judge, Gwalior in RCSA No. 202/2023, by which the application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, has been rejected.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of House No.759/54 situated on Plot No.52-C, Jawahar Colony, Kampu, Lashkar,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1325

District Gwalior. The aforesaid property was inherited by defendant No.1/applicant from her father-in-law after his death, who died on 18/11/1994. Defendant No.1/applicant has also lost her husband on 26/9/2012 and name of defendant No.1/applicant was mutated in the revenue records. It is the case of plaintiffs that on 7/4/2017, defendant No.1/applicant entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid property for a consideration amount of Rs.1 crore and by way of advance, she had also received Rs. 10 lacs by two cheques of Rs.5 lacs each. The sale deed was to be executed within a period of 5 months from the date of agreement. However, by another agreement dated 26/8/2017, the period for execution of sale deed was extended by 1 year till 5/9/2019. However, on one pretext or the other, the sale deed was not executed and, accordingly, suit was filed for specific performance of contract on 20/2/2023. The applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC by alleging that even if the plaint averments are accepted, then it is clear that the suit is barred by time. However, by the impugned order, application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC has been dismissed.

3. Challenging the impugned order, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that agreement to sell was executed on 7/4/2017 and sale deed was to be executed by 6/9/2017. However, by another agreement dated 26/8/2017, time for execution of sale deed was extended upto 5/9/2019. It is submitted that if the period of limitation of 3 years is counted from 5/9/2019, then it is clear that the period of 3 years had expired on 4/9/2022, whereas the suit was filed on 20/2/2023. It is submitted that it is true that in the light of COVID-19 pandemic, Supreme Court had relaxed the period of limitation, but by judgment dated 10/1/2022 passed by Supreme Court in the case of In Re:

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1325

Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020), the relaxation in period of limitation was recalled and, therefore, the suit should have been filed within the period as prescribed in para 5 of the aforesaid judgment. However, since the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation, therefore, the trial Court has committed material illegality in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

4. Per contra the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for applicant. It is submitted that since the suit was filed within the period of limitation, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court on 10/1/2022 in the case of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Supra), the trial Court did not commit any mistake.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Supra) has held as under:-

5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:

I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.

III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1325

have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."

6. It is clear from para 5(I) that period from 15/3/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special law in respect of any judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. As per clause 5(II), the balance period of limitation remaining on 3/10/2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 1/3/2022. As per clause 5(III), where the limitation would have expired during the period 15/3/2020 till 28/2/2022, then notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1/3/2022. In the event, the actual balance period of limitation remaining w.e.f. 1/3/2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

7. If the facts of this case are considered, then this Court is of considered opinion that Clause 5(II) would not come to the rescue of plaintiff because admittedly in the present case, the period of limitation would have expired on 4/9/2022, whereas Clause 5(II) provides that in case if any balance period of limitation is remaining on 3/10/2021 then it shall become available w.e.f. 1/3/2022. On 3/10/2021, the period of limitation of 337 days was available with the plaintiff and, therefore, as required under Clause 5(II) of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1325

judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Supra), that much of period was available to plaintiff w.e.f. 1/3/2022. If further period of limitation of 337 days is counted from 1/3/2022, then the last date for filing the civil suit would be 1/2/2023, whereas the suit was filed on 20/2/2023. Therefore, it is clear that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation.

8. Under these circumstances, the trial Court committed a material illegality by rejecting the application filed by respondent under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. Thus, it is held that the civil suit filed by respondent was barred by time.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs. Sri Bala & Company, decided on 08.01.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1525/2023, has held that a plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation if from plain reading of the plaint it appears that the suit is barred by time.

10. Thus, it is held that where the prayer is for rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation and if from plain reading of plaint it appears that the suit is barred by time then in that exceptional circumstances, the plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC on the ground of limitation. Since this Court has already held that the civil suit was filed after the expiry of period of limitation, therefore, application filed by respondent under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC is allowed and civil suit filed by plaintiff is hereby dismissed as barred by time.

9. Ex consequenti, the order dated 14/8/2025 passed by XXIII District Judge, Gwalior in RCSA No. 202/2023 is hereby affirmed.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1325

10. Civil revision succeeds and is, hereby, allowed.

(G.S.Ahluwalia) Judge (and)