THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5116 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner-plaintiff filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 10.10.2007 in I.A.No.230 of 2007 in O.S.No.569 of 2006 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad, in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to reject the plaint. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner-plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 28.09.1995. As per the agreement of sale, the total consideration payable is Rs.16,44,750/- to be paid in instalments. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- on the very same day. This was followed by issuance of a legal notice dated 28.09.2000 and remainder on 05.01.2001. To these, the defendant gave a reply on 25.04.2001 denying the execution of sale. The defendant orally agreed for the sale but he went back. Therefore, the plaintiff had to approach the District Consumer Forum through consumer case in C.D.No.1246 of 2004, which was filed on 02.08.2004. By the date of filing the above case, the suit was barred by limitation. On that ground the District Consumer Forum dismissed the same on 06.07.006 and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum confirmed the same on 24.10.2006. It was only thereafter; the present suit was filed seeking specific performance. In the relief portion, the respondent sought for specific performance of agreement only and for due admission of the sale deed in the terms thereof. No alternative relief is sought for. After filing of the written statement, the petitioner has filed the present application contending that having regard to the benefits and the cause of action having arisen at that point of time, the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as contemplated under the Law of Limitation. The Court below, after considering the respective submissions and also on perusal of the pleadings as filed from both the sides, did not find favour with the petitioner’s request and rejected the application only on the ground that since it is stated in the complaint that on 31.05.2003, the plaintiff orally agreed to execute the sale deed but went back and it is on that day on which cause of action has arisen and hence, it is well within limitation. Hence, the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that having regard to mere decree, the dates which are starring at the plaintiff, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and the same could not have been entertained. Repelling the said contention, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- out of Rs.16,44,750/- was paid on the date of agreement itself and it is the petitioner-defendant, who is coming back to the terms in spite of two notices issued earlier and hence, the same was denied. On perusal of the entire material on record, especially the contents of which transpire that there is no serious dispute to the aforesaid chequered events and dates. No doubt, in the plaint, it has been mentioned to the effect that on 31.05.2003, the defendant has agreed to orally execute, but he went back, however, absolutely there is no explanation nor proper reasons given in regard to the exchange of notices or whether there is actual denial about the very execution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cause of action arose as alleged in the plaint i.e., on 31.05.2003. Except mentioning the said bare statement, there is no record or material to support the same. In fact, the entire surrounding circumstances including exchange of notices and the proceedings before the Consumer Forum would amply show the transactions that occurred between the parties. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept such an oral statement or any promise. In view of the categorical denial as long back as on 25.4.2001 itself, in fact, in site of approaching the Consumer Court for which no explanation is forthcoming, the respondent has taken up the remedy of approaching the Civil Court. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the suit is clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the plaint is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 10.10.2007 in I.A.No.230 of 2006 is set aside. Consequently, the plaint in O.S.No.569 of 2006 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court), stands rejected. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 12th August 2010 RRB