Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abu Zar Rehman Khan Mobinuddin Khan, filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangrampur in Regular Civil Suit No.17/2012. The trial court had rejected the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The suit property was originally owned by the father of respondent No.2, who on 08.05.1973 entered into an agreement to sell the property to respondent No.1 and his mother Subhdrabai for a consideration of Rs.1,375/-. The sale deed was to be executed after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. In 1995, respondent No.2 filed a suit for possession against respondent No.1 (Regular Civil Suit No.35/1985), which was dismissed on 23.05.1993, and the appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No.17/1993) was dismissed on 06.11.1998. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a suit against respondent No.2 (Regular Civil Suit No.12/2011), which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, and then the present suit No.17/2012 was filed for specific performance of the agreement dated 08.05.1973. Meanwhile, the petitioner purchased the suit property from respondent No.2 on 10.02.2011 vide a registered sale deed. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC contending that the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the agreement was of 1973 and the suit was filed in 2012, i.e., after 39 years. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court allowed the revision, holding that the suit was ex facie barred by limitation and the plaint ought to be rejected. The court noted that the agreement did not fix any date for performance, and the suit was filed more than three years after the date of the agreement, which is the maximum period allowed under Article 54. The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, rejecting the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC - Limitation - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.05.1973 filed in 2012 is clearly barred by limitation under Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963, as the period of limitation is three years from the date fixed for performance or from notice of refusal. The plaint must be rejected as the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. (Paras 1-6) B) Limitation Act - Specific Performance - Article 54 - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.05.1973 filed in 2012 is barred by limitation as the agreement fixed no date for performance and the suit was filed more than three years after the date of agreement. The court held that the suit is clearly barred by limitation and the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 08.05.1973, filed in 2012, is barred by limitation and liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangrampur in Regular Civil Suit No.17/2012, and allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, thereby rejecting the plaint.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC
- Article 54 Limitation Act 1963
- Specific performance
- Limitation for suits for specific performance
- Rejection of plaint
