PHOOL CHAND Vs. RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant (for short 'the defendant') under Sec. 115 CPC against the order dtd. 13/3/2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Kaman (Bharatpur) (for short 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.85/2023, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant in which defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the effect that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff wanted to execute the oral agreement dtd. 10/2/1996 by which he is said to have given Rs.1,06,500.00.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the defendant further submits that plaintiff had not filed the suit for specific performance of the contract but he had simply filed the suit for injunction. That was not maintainable. The suit was also not within limitation, but trial court vide order dtd. 13/3/2024 wrongly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant. So, order dtd. 13/3/2024 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by law and limitation.