On a Bare Perusal of the Plaint, It Cannot Be Said That the Suit Was Barred By Limitation – Punjab and Haryana HC in Specific Performance Case
In a pivotal judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, has upheld the rejection of a plea for the dismissal of a plaint in a specific performance suit. The Court stated, “On a bare perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by limitation,” thereby dismissing the revision petition filed against the order.
Legal Point of the Judgement:
The judgment centered around the interpretation and application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the context of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell.
Facts and Issues:
The dispute involved a contract dated August 4, 2014, for the sale of property. The defendant-petitioners sought the rejection of the plaint, arguing the suit was barred by limitation. The key issue was whether the facts presented in the plaint indicated the suit fell within the permissible time frame.
Court’s Assessment and Decision:
Interpretation of Plaint: The Court meticulously analyzed the plaint, noting multiple extensions for executing the sale deed and payments made after the original agreement date, which could affect the limitation period.
Question of Limitation: Emphasizing that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, the Court held that deciding the matter’s limitation at this stage was premature.
Jurisprudential Basis: The decision drew from Supreme Court judgments, asserting that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the merits or demerits of the case are not to be assessed.
Final Decision: The High Court concluded there was no ground to reject the plaint on the basis of limitation as per its prima facie evaluation, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.
Date of Decision: April 3, 2024
Radha Rani and Another vs. Ranjna Rani
