Revision petitions by defendants against dismissal of their Order VII Rule 11 plaint-rejection applications in suits for specific performance. The court held limitation under Article 54 ran from refusal on reply notices dated 09.10.2018, so suits filed in November 2018 were not time-barred, and dismissed the revisions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2802 & 2803 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.12.2024
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2802 & 2803 of 2024 & C.M.P.Nos.14921 & 14927 of 2024
Neerav Aggarwal ... Petitioner in CRP.No.2802 of 2024 Kamakshi Aggarwal … Petitioner in CRP.No.2803 of 2024
-Versus-
Shivam Poddar Rep. by his Power agent, Mr.Vimala Kumar Poddar ... Respondent in both CRPs.
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.128 of 2018 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.129 of 2018.
COMMON ORDER
These two civil revision petitions arise against the order passed by the
learned Subordinate Court at Madurantakam in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2802 & 2803 of 2024
O.S.No.128 of 2018 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.129 of 2018.
the parties on 12.01.2007 in both the cases. On the said date, the plaintiff had paid the defendants in each of the suits a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. In terms of the agreements, the possession of the property was handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff took possession of the properties. He requested the defendants to execute the sale deeds in his favour. They did not do so. Hence, he issued a notice on 25.09.2018 calling upon the defendants in both the suits to come forward and execute sale deeds.
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2802 & 2803 of 2024
that the defendants in both suits are going to alienate the property, he came forward with two suits seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
before me.
3 of 6
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2802 & 2803 of 2024
Mr.Naveen Balaji for the respondent and have gone through the records.
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2802 & 2803 of 2024
second part of Article 54. In both the cases, he issued a notice seeking for specific performance on 25.09.2018. It was only by way of replies on 09.10.2018, the demand of the plaintiff was refused. Therefore, that date should be taken for commencement of right to sue for the plaintiff. If that be the situation, the presentation of the suits within a month, namely, on 08.11.2018 cannot be held to be barred by time.
06.12.2024
nl Index : yes / no Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam
5 of 6
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2802 & 2803 of 2024
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2802 & 2803 of 2024
06.12.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Can a suit for specific performance be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation?
From what date does limitation run under Article 54 of the Limitation Act when no performance date is fixed in the agreement?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Neerav Aggarwal
Kamakshi Aggarwal
Shivam Poddar
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
