SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. ARIF KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by plaintiff-petitioner praying for quashing of the judgment and order dtd. 24/3/2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Bareilly in Civil Revision No. 3 of 2003, Arif Khan and others vs. Satya Prakash Sharma. Plaintiff in this case i.e., Satya Prakash Sharma, instituted a suit praying for a decree of specific performance of contract dtd. 31/7/1991 with Abdul Rashid Khan, since deceased and father of defendant-respondent nos. 1 to 6 and husband of defendant-respondent no. 7. During the pendency of trial, the defendants-respondents moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C praying for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by time and it does not discloses any cause of action. The trial court rejected the aforesaid application and aggrieved by the same the defendant-respondents preferred a Civil Revision No.3 of 2003 which was allowed and plaint of the Original Suit No. 487 of 2002 pending before Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bareilly was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has submitted that the agreement in dispute was registered on 2/8/1991. The total sale consideration was Rs.5,00,000.00 out of which Rs.1,25,000.00 was paid by way of advance to the original defendant who was required to obtain necessary permission from Competent Authority under Urban Ceiling Act. Neither sale deed was executed nor permission was taken by the defendant from the ceiling authorities. On 28/7/2000 Rs.1,00,000.00 was further paid by the plaintiff to the original defendant, Abdul Rashid Khan. Even after accepting Rs.1,00,000.00 more no sale deed was executed and suit was instituted in the year 2002. The trial court rejected the application moved by the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C by the order dtd. 5/4/2003 by recording the finding that the plaint of the suit discloses legal cause of action and the suit is also within the period of limitation. The defendantsrespondents preferred a revision and the revisional court found that the issue relating to disclosure of cause of action has been rightly decided by the trial court but the issue relating to limitation was wrongly decided. The revisional court found that the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was barred by time.