KISANLAL Vs. HARISCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision application is filed against the order made on Exhibit 40 which was filed in Special Civil Suit No.393 of 2007 pending before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The application was filed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present applicants. It is their contention that the suit is not within limitation. The application is rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that from the contents of the paint and from the cause of action shown in the plaint, it cannot be said at present the suit is not within limitation. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) This Court has gone through the copy of plaint and also the written statement. This Court has also gone through the terms and conditions of so called agreement. The suit is filed for specific performance of contract against the present applicants. The agreement took place on 1-4-1991. The defendant's predecessor agreed to sell area of 6000 square feet from CTS No.15854/A situated at Daudpura,Aurangabad. The property was not developed but promise was given to give plot facing to 80 feet D.P. road coming from Sahanoorwadi and proceeding to Hotel Amarpreet. First installment of Rs.25000/- was accepted on the date of agreement. The second installment was also given. Last installment was to be given on the date of execution of sale deed and sale deed was to be executed after final sanction of revised lay out plan by competent authority. It is the case of the plaintiff that owner did not take steps for getting aforesaid sanction for years together. It is contended that after the death of the owner when plaintiff approached the heirs of the owner in March 2007 to request them to execute sale deed, they promised to execute within 2 to 3 months but then they avoided to execute the sale deed. It is contend that one more suit is pending between the parties and the defendants are interested in putting pressure on the plaintiff to see that the other suit is compromised.

(3.) The defendants contended that there was no lay out plan and so nature of contract was contingent contract and so no relief can be given. The agreement is disputed. Alternate defence is taken that their predecessor was in need of money and when he demanded Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff, plaintiff asked the deceased to give something in writing and so the document was created.