.^3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR"s^ CIVIL REVISION N0. 72009 ^ PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS ^\^- ^a^ ^.- •^^ " i^-""^&^'CTL $'? ^' '"<?^'-'' ^.^^^ .,"°'' -^^€>>' ^ 1] Saheb Lal S/o. Radheshyam Kewat, aged about : 32 years, 2]/ Radheshyam S/o. Banau Kewat, aged about : 55 years, Both are R/o. Village : Temri, Police Station &Tahsil : Palari, District : Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ )EFENDANTS ^ ; f. ^ Nohar Singh, S/o. Thakur Ram Gond, aged about : 80 years, 2], Puran Singh S/o. Nohar Singh Gond, aged about : 50 years, Both are R/o. Village : Amethi, Police Station & Tahsil : Palari, District : Raipur (C.G.). ^ CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE "^ "^, ^ ^)'K^ y fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Civil Revision No. 56/2009 PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS Saheb Lal & others. Versus Nohar Singh & others. Appearance: Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.K. Tiwari, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (17.06.2010) With the consent of counsel for the parties revision petition is heard finally. (2) The petitioners/plaintiffs had preferred the suit for recovety of Rs.18000/- against the defendants/respondents on the pleadings inter alia that on 6/06/1996 an agreement was entered into between the parties for sale of 0.328 hectare of land. The defendants received Rs.10,000/- as advance on the date ofagreement and thereafter they received the amount ofRs.8000/- more as advance on different dates. It was agreed that the defendants would move application before the Collector for permission to execute the sale-deed as required under Section 165 (6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, because the defendants are tribal. According to the plaintiffs, the / defendants delivered possession ofthe land. However, the defendants -^ ";<^ ^l i \^y ^ -0 did not inform them about the rejection of their application moved before the Collector. The defendants recovered possession ofthe land in 2004 and did not retum the advance paid to them. Thus, the present suit was filed. (3) The Trial Court decreed the suit. Issue regarding limitation being issue no.3 was decided in favour ofthe plaintiffs. (4) The First Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree, has allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants and has found that the suit for recovery ofthe amount ofRs.18000/- allegedly paid to the defendants on different dates in pursuance to agreement dated 6/06/1996, having been preferred on 22nd September, 2005 is apparently barred by limitation, as the Umitation for recovery of amount is three years from the date of advance or from the date of accmal ofcause ofaction. .(5) Learned First Appellate Court has found that the cause of action stated in the plaint for filing the present suit has been so stated without specifying the date of knowledge as to on which date the Collector rejected the defendants prayer for permission to sale the land. In the absence of anything placed on record about the date of rejection ofthe said application or even the date ofkiiowledge ofthe plaintiffs about the said rejection of the defendants application, the Learned First Appellate Court found that the suit should have been -y preferred within three years from the date of agreement. Learned ^.-^.;-,:,. /^,"% s ^,,^^ ^. j 'y^^g^^ '^ \ ^y/ '^sy ^ counsel for the petitioners submits that since the plaintiffs were in possession ofthe land till the year 2004, the suit tlled in September, 2005 is within limitation. (6) Having considered the said contention, this court is of the opinion that there is nothing in the agreement (Ex. P-1) to suggest that the possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiffs on the date of execution of agreement. The agreement does not contain any other recital also to the effect in the event permission is not accorded by the Collector, the defendants can recover possession of the land and in such an event, the defendants shall refand the amount ofadvance. The agreement being silent on these aspects, even ifthe plaintiffs remained in possession till the year 2004, that vvould not bring the suit for recovery ofthe amount within limitation. (7) In the opinion ofthis court, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction nor does it suffer from any material irregularity in exercise ofjurisdiction. (8) In the result, the instant revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge