112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3509 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 24, 2026 Parveen Kumar . . . . Pe22oner vs. Rakesh Mi5al . . . . Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.N. Lohan and Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocates for the peoner. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The peoner–defendant has invoked the revisional jurisdicon of this Court to assail the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jind, whereby his applicaon under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejecon of the plaint, in civil Suit bearing CS No. CS-832-2025 tled ‘Rakesh Mial Vs. Parveen Kumar’ has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent–plainff instuted a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 11.01.2020, asserng that a total sale consideraon of ₹71 lakhs was se8led, out of which a sum of ₹50 lakhs stood paid as earnest money and part payment. The spulated date for execuon of the sale deed was 31.12.2020. However, the plainff pleaded that the suit property was under an equitable mortgage on account of a substanal loan obtained by the defendant and his brothers, which fact was not disclosed at the me of execuon of the agreement. It was further pleaded that the mortgage came to be redeemed only on 05.07.2023 and therea=er, despite repeated requests, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, whereas the co-owners executed sale deeds in favour of the plainff. According to the plainff, the cause of acon arose SARITA RANI 2026.04.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3509 of 2026 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 062856 upon refusal by the defendant, culminang in the filing of the suit on 10.12.2025. 3. The defendant–peoner filed an applicaon under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecon of the plaint, primarily on the ground that the suit is barred by limitaon, as the date fixed for performance was 31.12.2020 and the suit has been instuted beyond the prescribed period of three years under Arcle 54 of the Limitaon Act, 1963. It was also contended that the plainff had no subsisng cause of acon, parcularly in view of pending evicon and execuon proceedings concerning the suit property. 4. The said applicaon was opposed by the plainff by contending that the limitaon would not commence from the date fixed in the agreement in the peculiar facts of the case, inasmuch as the defendant himself was not in a posion to perform the contract due to subsisng encumbrance over the property. It was further asserted that the cause of acon arose only upon redempon of the mortgage and subsequent refusal by the defendant to execute the sale deed, and therefore, the suit was well within limitaon. It was also pleaded that the queson of limitaon, in the given circumstances, is a mixed queson of law and fact. 5. The learned trial Court, upon consideraon of the rival submissions and the material on record, dismissed the applicaon by holding that while adjudicang an applicaon under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be seen and the defence raised by the defendant cannot be taken into account. It was further held that the issue of limitaon, in the present case, involves disputed quesons of fact, parcularly with regard to the effect of encumbrance on the property and the conduct of the pares, and therefore, the same cannot be decided at the threshold. 6. Assailing the above order, Learned counsel for the peoner has vehemently contended before this Court that once a specific date for performance i.e. 31.12.2020 was fixed in the agreement, the limitaon necessarily commenced from that date, and the suit having been filed in SARITA RANI 2026.04.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3509 of 2026 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 062856 December 2025 is ex facie barred by me. Reliance is placed on Fatehji & Company and Anr. Vs. L.M. Nagpal and Ors., 2015 (8) SCC 390. It is submi8ed that the trial Court has erred in not rejecng the plaint despite the apparent bar of limitaon. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the peoner and having perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the present revision peon. 8. It is a se8led principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an applicaon under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to confine itself to the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein. The defence of the defendant is wholly irrelevant at this stage. The power of rejecon of plaint can be exercised only when the bar to the suit is apparent on the face of the plaint itself. 9. In the present case, a meaningful reading of the plaint (Annexure P-1) shows that the plainff has specifically pleaded that the property in queson was under an equitable mortgage and that the defendant was not in a posion to execute the sale deed on the spulated date. It is further pleaded that the mortgage was redeemed only on 05.07.2023 and that therea=er, the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract despite repeated requests. These averments, if taken at their face value, clearly indicate that the starng point of limitaon is itself a ma8er requiring adjudicaon. 10. The queson as to whether the limitaon would commence from the date fixed for performance or from the date of refusal, in the backdrop of alleged encumbrance and conduct of the pares, cannot be determined without evidence. It is, thus, a classic case where the issue of limitaon is a mixed queson of law and fact. 11. It is also noteworthy that the period directed to be excluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Pe**on (C) No. 3 of 2020 on account of the COVID-19 pandemic would also have a bearing on computaon of limitaon, which further reinforces that the issue cannot be decided summarily. Page 3 of 4 SARITA RANI 2026.04.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3509 of 2026 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 062856 12. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly concluded that the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold and that the ma8er requires adjudicaon on merits a=er the pares lead evidence. 13. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdicon, does not sit in appeal over the order of the trial Court. Unless the impugned order is shown to suffer from patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdiconal error, no interference is warranted. The order under challenge reflects a correct applicaon of se8led legal principles and does not call for any interference. 14. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision peon, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending applicaons, if any, shall also stand disposed of. April 24, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No SARITA RANI 2026.04.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order