KAMALA GANGOLI Vs. RAM LAKHAN SINGH YADAV COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been directed against the order dated 17.08.2011 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-VIII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 19 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the petition dated 12.05.2010 filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. It is submitted that the opposite party has filed the suit on 14.01.2008 for specific performance of contract in respect of an agreement dated 11.11.1988 allegedly executed between the parties and it is apparent that the suit filed by the opposite party is time barred. It is further contended that the aforesaid agreement which was executed between the parties stood cancelled because the opposite party failed to discharge his part of obligation under the said agreement and it was duly informed to the opposite party. Since the suit filed by tire plaintiff is not having cause of action, the plaint filed by the opposite party was liable to be rejected but the learned Sub-Judge misconstrued the provision and the reasoning given in the impugned order are not tenable. The petitioner was directed to maintain status quo during pendency of L.P.A. No. 430 of 1999 (R) and therefore the opposite party was not restrained from taking recourse to enforce the alleged agreement.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the argument so advanced and submitted that after execution of the said agreement petitioners were contesting U.L.C. Case No. 12 of 1976 which was pending before Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and that matter went upto the High Court and lastly disposed of vide L.P.A. No. 430 of 1999 (R). It is submitted that the petitioners have preferred C.W.J.C. No. 3347 of 1998 (R) before the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in which the opposite party appeared and contested the said writ application. Thereafter, the opposite party had also appeared in L.P.A. No. 430 of 1999 (R) in which status quo was directed to be maintained and the petitioners were restrained from transferring the land. That was the reason the opposite party did not prefer any suit for specific performance of contract. When, this Hon'ble Court at the time of disposal of L.P.A. No. 430 of 1999 (R), has observed:-

(3.) The opposite party in view of observation made in the said order filed Title Suit No. 19 of 2008 in which the petitioners filed petition under Order VII Rule 11(d) which stood rejected with appropriate reason and that order does not suffer with any illegality or incorrectness and therefore there is no merit in this revision.