SAROJ RAHEJA Vs. ADDL CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has submitted this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated 1-9-2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No. 26/2001 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected an application filed by the petitioner for deciding the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue.

(2.) FROM the documents produced on record and the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit on 11-12-2000 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22-10-1977 alleged to have been executed by one Nemi Bai in favour of Balwant Singh. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 and 3 are the sons of Balwant Singh. According to the plaint averments, Smt. Nemi Bai had expired on 2-9-1987 and her only heir was her daughter Yasoda Devi, who had also expired on 6-3-1999 and the defendant No. 1, the present petitioner is her only heir. The dispute relates to 10 bighas of agricultural land in Murabha No. 52 at Chak 10 G Chhoti. According to the plaintiffs the land in question was allotted by Rehabilitation Department to Smt. Nemi Bai and she agreed to sell the same to Balwant Singh on consideration of Rs. 4000/- per bigha; received Rs. 32,000/- on 22-10-1977; delivered possession of the land; and it was a term of the agreement that after obtaining Sanad of the land and getting khatedari recorded in the revenue records, information thereof would be extended to the purchaser. Taking other averments of their readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed, allegations have been made against the defendant petitioner that on account of appreciation in the price of land, she was not executing the sale deed and ultimately refused on 28-11-2000 to execute the sale deed which gave rise to the cause of action.

(3.) AFTER filing of the pleadings, the learned trial Court has framed issues and has also allowed the plaintiffs to produce documents on record by the order dated 19-4-2005 and has also allowed the plaintiffs a fresh opportunity to lead evidence. However, an application was submitted by the petitioner on 12-7-2005 with the submissions that an issue was framed to the effect as to whether the suit was liable to be dismissed being barred by time and this issue being a legal issue, was required to be heard and decided before any other proceedings in the suit.