[2025:RJ-JP:20168] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 223/2022 Mohar Singh Son Of Shri Khanga Ram Jat, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Dhani Kyarala, Tan Chak Mandholi, Tehsil Meemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus Mangal Chand Son Of Shri Bujan Ram Jat, Resident Of Keetpura, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anubha Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 14 /05/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short 'the defendant') against the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Neem ka Thana, District-Sikar, in civil case No. 28/2022 titled as "Mangal Chand Vs. Mohar Singh", whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.11.2010 in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred because as per the agreement, suit was to be filed upto 21.11.2013. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that plaintiff had given notice to the defendant for specific performance [2025:RJ-JP:20168] (2 of 3) [CR-223/2022] on 08.12.2011. If period of limitation is calculated from the date of notice, then the suit was to be filed upto 07.12.2014. Plaintiff had also lodged an FIR against the defendant in the year 2012 in which Investigating Officer filed final report. To create the suit within limitation, plaintiff had given notice on 23.03.2018. Suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred but the trial Court vide order dated 17.08.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the petition filed by the defendant be allowed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that defendant had given assurance for compliance of the so-called agreement. So, last notice was given to him on 23.03.2018. So, the suit was filed within time and question of limitation would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.11.2010. Plaintiff had given the first notice regarding specific performance on 08.12.2011 and FIR was also lodged by him in the year 2012. So, in my considered opinion, plaintiff deliberately gave another notice in the year 2018 to create the suit within limitation. So, the [2025:RJ-JP:20168] (3 of 3) [CR-223/2022] suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred but the trial Court had committed an error in observing that the point of limitation would be decided after taking evidence of both the parties. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed and the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by limitation. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/81