[2025:RJ-JP:18424] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 35/2021 Rakesh S/o Umrav Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Nagla Lodha Tehsil And District Bharatpur Power Of Attorney Holder Of Somoti D/o Chiranji W/o Ramswaroop R/o Surajpolie Darwaja, Bharatpur (Raj.) (Power Of Attorney) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Padam Chand S/o Shri Ramhet Singh, R/o Outside B- Narayan Gate, Bharatpur At Present R/o Vikas Nagar, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) ….Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Somoti W/o Ramswaroop D/o Chiranji, R/o Outside Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Executor Of Agreement) 3. Harish S/o Shri Manikchand, R/o Outside Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Agreement Holder) 4. Ajay Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, R/o Hathaini, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Registered Purchaser) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. K. Moolchandani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Chaturvedi, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Bipin Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 02/05/2025 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.3 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Bharatpur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.257/2020, [2025:RJ-JP:18424] (2 of 4) [CR-35/2021] whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 29.01.1993 and permanent injunction against the defendant and proforma defendant Nos.2 to 4. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant filed an application before the trial court to the effect that the suit was filed by the plaintiff with an inordinate delay of 28 years. In his plaint, the plaintiff stated that after execution of the so-called agreement to sell, disputed land was not handed over to him. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that on account of unregistered agreement to sell, immovable property can not be transferred. Leaned counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff had deliberately created the cause of action by giving the registered notice dated 31.10.2020. In para No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated that after two years of execution of so called agreement to sell, he came to know regarding the pending revenue suit Nos.4526/01, 174/2001 and case No.13/15 before the SDO, Bharatpur. In the year 1995, the plaintiff had no knowledge regarding the pending revenue suit Nos.4526/01, 174/2001 and case No.13/15. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that in his plaint, the plaintiff mentioned that along with the said suit, he also filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone [2025:RJ-JP:18424] (3 of 4) [CR-35/2021] the delay occurred in filing the suit. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay in filing the suit. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff but the trial court vide order dated 10.02.2021 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that it is an admitted position that the so called agreement was executed on 29.01.1993 but in the said agreement, no specific date of execution of the registered sale deed was mentioned and It was mentioned that on the will of the buyer, sale deed was to be executed. On denial of the defendant, the plaintiff gave the registered notice on 31.10.2020. The said notice was received by the defendant on 04.11.2020. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff within limitation. So, the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present petition 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. [2025:RJ-JP:18424] (4 of 4) [CR-35/2021] It is an admitted position that the agreement to sell was executed on 29.01.1993 and the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2020 i.e. after a lapse of 28 years. Regarding limitation, the plaintiff in his plaint stated that he continued to pursue the agreement but on denial of the defendants, registered notice was given to them in the year 2020. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff had created the cause of action for filing the suit. What steps were taken by the plaintiff prior to giving the registered notice dated 31.10.2020, are not mentioned in the plaint. In para No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff wrongly stated that in the year 1995, he had no knowledge of the revenue suits pending in the year 2001 and the case pending in the year 2015. So, In my considered opinion, the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. No cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the suit. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. The civil revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as for want of cause of action to the plaintiff. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/106