@ mggg geaéE ~IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATIIRE AT BILASPUR crvn. mwmox no. 9% 2005 Vijay Kumar Mishra, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Jwala Prasad Mishra, resident of Lakshman Nagar, presently residing at Behind Avon Industries, Paras Nagar, Raipur. W/ PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF C!V!L PROCEDURE, 1908 .imgA_1.;._4.1__. A Qgjn 5w f APPLICANT : a?” Khelanlai Sonker, son of Shri M6efcndant No. 1) Ramprasad Sonker, Adult resident of Ramkund, Chirhuldih Ward, Raipur. Vs NgNI-AIPPLICANTS : lg y Smt. Sukwaro Bai, wife of KEPlaI‘num Ramkhilawan Yadav, Adult, resident of Lakshman Nagar, Raipur. ia%$%c&né g §eyen§iafii iilm’i :mym $§‘ 2a Sd/- j G. Minhajuddin ‘ Judge §§Q§ §§§jRT £3? §§€HA??E§€§A%H &'!' alLASMjR cWEi Rev§§§cm Na. “$33 6f 2&65 Apialisam Khelamai Sonker Defendam Mex; Vg Hm-aigpéimmg ' Smt. Sukwaro 85d and anether Qaintii‘f Pmggm: $hi‘i BP Sharma, caumel for the aimlicamidéfendant. Shy; Adhiraj Surana, ceunsel for nen—apgiicant Neilpiaintiff. QRaER {PaSSed an \ 2. August; 201’?) G. Minhajuddén, J This revf$im ha$ been med under S$ction 115 8f We Cecie 6f Civil Procedure, 1908 (iii shark “CPC") agaim‘i ihe arciei‘ daied 22.10.2605 passed by 15* Additional Civil Judge, Ciass—i, Raipur ((EG) m Civii Suit Na.145A/O4, by which iiie ap‘piicaiicm iiied hy ihe appiicani/defendani under Order 7’ Ruie ‘ii cf thé CPO far reiectiari of piaini has beeri rejeci‘eci (For {he oaka of corwénienoe oartie§ Shari hereindfier bi. referrad to as pier their uo p r: bofore the iriai Court) 2. Brier iaol$ of in; Gabe are {hat a per piairu of tho oiaintii‘f, the piaiotiff hau ootored imo an agreemem win tho dafe’rdant for ourohaae of rhe wit iamo‘ on 25.1 .‘xQQ‘i mimever m *hsas avg”; of non-axocmtioo of the saié daed am“ regioiraiion in iavour o he piai riff by “re deferidant, ihe oiairrii f ‘iiéo' ihf= orersarri wit or; 122.19%, whereao a suii‘ for aoecsfr‘ gauiormmm of ioa oor‘irraoi iss to £38 io3tiiuieé withiri a oeriod or {moo yaorS frog? *ho oak cs vcrw‘ m Howaver the oiaintif haa iiieo rho ingrant owi‘beyood me oeriorj oi imitation, therefore, by riiing an appiioarroo undar Oroer 7 Ruia ii of the CPS, it wee prayeri that the suit otthe piaihtiff be diemiesed. a a. Heard teamed counee. tar the jart ee, perueee the thwehee erder dated 22.16.2663 agreement er eete timerhame‘ ee. 25.1 .i§9‘i aewe es the piemt tried ir‘i C hi: St.g;’3.t4’iiti’3aé i 4. Contention cf learnea gounsel for fhe applicant/defendant is that 3Q per agraement of sale daied’ 25.1 .1991, the entire amcunt of Rs.12,580/- wa$ paid by the piaintiff on 25.1.1991 and it was agreed that the applicant/defendent wilt obtain necessary permission from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and after that the plaintiff may get the sale deed executen and registered at any time. He. further contends that although no date has been fixed for performance of the contract in the agreement of eale dated 25.1 .1991, yet under Artiste 54 of the Limitation Act, the period of iimitation witl be governed by the second iimb i.e. when the non- a‘oplioantlpiaintiff/purohaser had notioex that the nerfarmanoe had been retnsed and as the non~appiioantfeiaintiff nae herself, in para-4 of her plaint, has pieaded that‘the applicant/defendant had refused to execute the sale deed in the year 1§91 or eorne time in 19Q2, therefore, the edit for Specific performance of the contract of sate filed in February, 1%3 is honeleeeiy barred by tirnitation. 5. in suppon of hie contention, teamed oouneei has reiied upon the judgmente of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the mattere of Venitappa Garegma ffoeor V5. Kasawwa Cfo ffaneaoea Kofgod, (few) 1e ace dd; Pnknraj t3. Jain and others; tie. G. Gopeiekrfsfma, (20%} f’ sac 25f: and judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in denier Sistine ifs. Jaewfnder singn and another, 2010 Law serif {P é; H) 3531. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the non-appiicantiplaintiff hae contended that there ie no dispute that ae no date hae been fixed for performance of the contract, therefore, the period of limitation for tiiing the euit wiil he governed by the second timid of Article 54 of the Limitation Act; 1963 {in ehort "the Act, 1953"). He further contende that as the applicant/defendant/vendor had not obtained the requisite permission from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiting Act, 1976, therefore, it cannot be said under the eecond iimb of Article 54 of the Aot,‘1§63 that the period of iimitation had commenced from 1991 or 19§2 and in fact, it commenced oniy when on 7.10.1998, the applicant/defendant eenred a notice upon the non-apptlcant!piaintiff demanding additional amount, of which a repiy dated 27.10.1998 was sent to the appiicant/defendant demanding execution,andvregietration \v > / 0f the saig deed am even after mat wh% ihe apg3{§er;ar7t/dgfandam éid m3? exesute ihe §aie daw, tha mmsem wit haS bean f§£eci m Februaw, $99, and 23$ such, the samé is weii within limitatian. He ha$ further Cantendad that Wham accasim ari$€$ far computmg ima giériad of !§mitaiign undai sgcend {imb Q§ Artktié 54 g? {ma Aat, 1%3' am we; quastion is a mixeé quegftm a? iaw arid fact, men ihe paim of Emmt‘iari $hcu€ci net $5 aecia'eaj a8 a preiimmgiy i5$ua but the pa:ii8$ 3hauic} be cardgred ta addacg evidance an thia paént, at) that it camd be a$cefiaingd wkh {Eriamty as t0 when the pkaihth‘f had mime that Lk me gerformama ai‘ centraci af 3am has baan refuged byihe dgfenrzant‘ 3" TO buméa$ hi$ cantemion, réiiancg‘ ha$ baan piamci am we judgmeaE af the Hm’bia Suprgme Cam in the mattarg cf amtwamttmat :tgtgttgttggté 3§£§3 am? gig‘teig £5. Jamar: 555 agate! am' catttgtg, {£t§§é} 3 $£Q tiaé; amt #attghmtavtt Lthata amt ettzgm V3, Evttjnmgt'té‘ .s‘tgt‘ft zitttatty {tt'ggéit Mmtigtt é£5t “Em! amthési {£§§§) 5 tat: 3&3 5. tt ig mt in diamttg that tha agtaemaht hf $aie ha$ been exacuted 0n 2544991. anti the eatite amnuht wag hatd by the Qtathtih‘ ta the apphaahtfdefahttaht {m the 3ame day A5; par agrtzemaht Qt mtg, permigaten fmm that mmpetent authartty under tha Urban Lama Cétt‘mg Act, 1W6 wa$ ta be obtained by the aghttcant/dxafenttaht amt thetéattgt Qnty tha sate deetj watt ta he executed tt 1“ atgg mt th ttigmte that m watt hermtttatah wa$ hhtathett t; the ah r‘ fagt, hr“: ta. H3 3w hwthh ti} t»? mmaa‘teht att h$§h tu a t t w u, m; iaau 39 héatt fiat; ‘1 5 tat hhtthtmahct’: Gt m: whttact. 35 it: tthth at fittia Em Qt mgr; . wnhM” tat-g Uri)mn mm thin: atatemeht madg tn taw. tt ta ht: ctaubt trué a ggmhé tt hb‘h‘tgrttcte 54 R V \\ ; . : H a t I > t t I y h &nd the question of limitation is a mixed que$ticn of law and fact, then ihe 3ame cannot be decaided as a preliminary issue and the parties wiii have to adduce evidence to ascertain with certainty as to when the piaintiff had noticafof refuoai of the contract. Aiong with the present revision petition, the applicant/defendant, in addition to agreement of sate dated 25.1.1991 and copy of the impugned order dated 22.10.2005, nae atso fited copy of the ptaint in Civti Suit No.145A/O4 inetituted by the non-appiicant/ptaintifi‘ and there is no dispute about the genuinenese of theee documents between he parties. i 10. in the instant case, from perusai of the averments made in para- 4 of the ptaint, it is ctear that after execution of the agreement os‘ eeie on 25.1.1991, the non—apphcant/ptetntitt aiong with her huebend hed been regulariy meeting the apeiicent/defendant/vendor and were ineieting for execution of the sate deed but the eppiicant/defendant used to querrei with them and hed reftieed to execute the eate deed. The non-appiicant/piaintitf after execution ot agreement of eeie dated 25.1 .1991 had never enquired from the appiicant/defendent or tried to obtained information from the office of the competent authority under the Urban Lend Ceiting Act, 1976 to aecertain Whether any epptioation tor permieeion has, in fact, been tiied by the eppiioent/defendant or not. The non—eppiioent/pteintit‘f hae evened in pare-6 of the pieint that a notice stated ?.1G.1998 wee sent by the eppiteent/defendeht to the pieihtiff demanding additiohei amount, after which a repiy was sent from the eide of the piaintitt to the defendant demanding execution of the eete deed. Thiefect has not been admitted by ieerned oouneei for the eo‘oiioant. When the entire amount of Re.12,580/~ wee paid by the non-applicant/pieintitf to the eppticantjdetendent on the date of execution of the agreement of sate on 25.1.1991, then the qoeetion of ’ eending a notice demanding additionei amount after more than 7? yeare on 7.1Q.1QQ8 doee not arise end this appears to have been pieaded oniy to bring the Suit Within the period of limitation. 1t. The non-appiioant/piaintiff has speeifioaity pteaded in para-4 of the ptaint that she atong with her husband had been meeting the eppitoantfdetendant and insisting him for executing the, eaie deed but wfb the applmant/defendant usied i9 quarrei with mam and had réfu$ed ta execute the $ale deed. Thus“ from thi3 pleaéing if”; para—4 0f the piaim, if iS cigar heyond any doubt that immediately after execution of the agreement ef eale dated 25.1.1991 when the ptaintiff ahd her husband had eppmached the appticant!defendent fer executing the eaie deed, he had refused ta execute the sate deed. Ae such, the plaintiff had notice. that perfermenee of the centract hae been refueed by the applicant in the year 1991. or eome time in 1992 iteeifi In View of thie, the ereeent euit tiied in February, 1999, even when geverned by the eeeend time of - Article 54 of the Act, 1963, ie hepeteeely barred by iimitaticn, ehd therefcre, the trial Geurt has eemmitted a iuriedictional errcr in rejecting the applicationunder O‘rder 7 Ruie 11 cf the CPC filed on behait of the applicant/defendant fer rejection of piaint and consequently, entertaining the euit. 12. ln the reeuit, the civil revision is ailowed. Setting aeide the impugned order dated 22.10.2005, the applicaticn under Order 7 Rule t1 of the CPC filed by the applicant/defendant ie alicwed. Consequently, rejecting the piaint fited in Civil Suit Nc.145A/04 in the Court of 15‘ Additionai Civil Judge, Ctass-l, Raipur, the suit is dismissed as time harred. No order as tc coste. sd/4 G. Minhajuddin Judge 14/