[2026:RJ-JP:31455] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 130/2026 CNR: RJHC020181632026 | URN: CR / 234U / 2026 1 Chandrakanta D/o Late Champalal W/o Purshottam Sharma, Resident Of Village Post Indava, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). 2 Santosh Chaturvedi, D/o Late Champalal W/o Raj Kumar Chaturvedi, R/o 112/72, Sector-112, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, District Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1 Jagdish S/o Late Ambalal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Sheonanda, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). 2 Sub-Registrar, Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). 3 State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Lalsot, District Dasua (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 11/08/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No.1, Lalsot, District Dausa in Civil Suit No.79/2025 titled 'Jagdish Prasad Vs. Chandrakanta & Ors.', whereby the application dated 15.10.2025 filed by the defendant/petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, was rejected. 2. The facts germane to the present civil revision petition, in brief, are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a civil suit for specific performance in respect of an agreement dated [2026:RJ-JP:31455] (2 of 5) [CR-130/2026] 06.01.2012. In the plaint, it is further stated that despite serving a legal notice dated 24.06.2025 upon the defendants, they have not executed the sale deed dated 06.01.2012. Therefore, relief of specific performance and permanent injunction was sought in the suit. 2.1. Upon service in the suit, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed an application dated 15.10.2025 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, on the ground that the suit being barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963; and that no cause of action survived in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a detailed written statement, denying the averments in the plaint and prayed that the suit may be dismissed with costs. 2.2. The said application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent by filing a reply dated 16.10.2025, refuting the aforesaid arguments and contending that the said application does not fall within the four corners of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 3. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 vide order dated 07.01.2026. 4. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant/petitioners have preferred the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court seriously erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC while not considering the fact that the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 06.01.2012 was instituted on 11.08.2025, with an inordinate delay of over thirteen (13) years, and is thus barred by limitation [2026:RJ-JP:31455] (3 of 5) [CR-130/2026] in view of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He further submits that, as per the averments of the plaint, it is evident that in pursuance of the agreement, the last payment was made on 30.04.2016, thus, at the most, the suit ought to have been instituted on 30.04.2019. Since the present suit was instituted only on 11.08.2025, the same is clearly barred by limitation. He therefore prays that the present revision petition may be allowed. 6. In order to buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment in Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead, through LRs and Ors.1 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, appearing as Caveator, supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court under Section 115 CPC. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition. 8. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the plaint, application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, reply and the impugned order. 9. A bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint reveals that in paragraph No. 4, the plaintiff has asserted that he repeatedly requested the defendants to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement dated 06.01.2012, but the defendants continually delayed the execution. Ultimately, the plaintiff served a legal notice on 24.06.2025, and when the sale 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366 [2026:RJ-JP:31455] (4 of 5) [CR-130/2026] deed was not registered despite the service of the said notice, the present suit was instituted on 11.08.2025. 10. In order to appreciate the argument relating to limitation, it would be apt to reproduce Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as under: Sr No. Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 54. For specific performance of a contract Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. 11. Upon a conjoint reading of the agreement in question and Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is undisputed that no specific date was fixed for the performance of the contract; and as per the legislative mandate, where no date is specified, the period of limitation begins to run from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. 12. In the present case, the plaint specifically avers that while the plaintiff made repeated requests for the execution of the sale deed, the defendants delayed the same for reasons best known to them. The cause of action crystallized when the legal notice was served on 24.06.2025, and upon the defendants' failure to register the sale deed, the present suit was instituted on 11.08.2025. 13. Insofar as the other arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, that pursuant to the agreement, the last payment was made on 30.04.2016 and, therefore, the suit ought to have been filed, at the most, by 30.04.2019, whereas the present suit was filed on 11.08.2025 and is consequently barred by limitation, is concerned, the same is a mixed question of fact [2026:RJ-JP:31455] (5 of 5) [CR-130/2026] and law. Such a defence can only be adjudicated after the framing of issues and the leading of evidence by the respective parties. 14. Since the arguments advanced by the petitioner do not fall within the strictly circumscribed four countors of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner lack merit and cannot be accepted at this threshold stage. 15. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Dahiben (supra) is concerned, even though there is no quarrel on the legal principle laid down therein, the issue involved in the said case stands on a different footing; therefore, the same is distinguishable on facts. 16. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 115 of the CPC. 17. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 18. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-6