What Is The Scope Of Limitation In Suit For Specific Performance Where No Time Was Mentioned For Execution Of Sale Deed? MP High Court Answers

After perusing the jurisprudence laid down by the Apex Court in Urvashiben & Anr. v. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi, the bench comprising Justice D.D. Bansal observed-

In the present case, no date or period has been fixed for performance of the agreement or for execution of sale deed and the plaintiff has come with the case that he was put in possession on the date of agreement of sale and during life time, the vendor Narayandas and after his death the defendant 1 assured the plaintiff to execute the sale deed but first time on 08.11.2021 by way of reply to the notice, he has denied from the agreement. Further, the plaintiff claiming himself to be in possession of the disputed land, has also prayed relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making interference in possession of the plaintiff. As such, in view of the aforesaid facts and legal position, at the present stage of suit, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

Facts of the case were that the Respondent/Plaintiff had instituted a suit for specific performance against the Petitioner/Defendants and had also sought for permanent injunction against them regarding to the suit property. The Petitioners moved an application before the trial court for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit was barred by limitation. However, their application was rejected. Aggrieved the Petitioners moved the Court.

The Petitioners submitted before the Court that the agreement in question was said to have been executed on 24.01.2001 but the suit was filed on 03.01.2022. Therefore, it was asserted that the suit was barred by limitation and it ought to have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. To strengthen their submissions, they placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Fatehji and Company & Anr. v. L.M Nagpal & Ors.

Per contra, the Respondent/Plaintiff pointed out that no date or period has been fixed for performance of the agreement or for execution of sale deed. It was further submitted that he was in possession of the suit property since the date of agreement of sale. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Urvashiben case, it was argued that his plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found merit in the submissions put forth by the Respondent/Plaintiff. It noted that the Respondent/Plaintiff had filed the suit within the limitation period as he was first denied from the agreement on 08.11.2021 through a notice sent by the Petitioner/Defendants.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation and thus, the plaint filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Bheru Chandani & Anr. v. Shivkumar Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 21

Click Here To Read/Download Order