In a revision petition, the High Court dismissed the plea asking for interference with an impugned order that held the plaintiffs' suit barred by limitation due to the cause of action arising on 06.01.2005.
The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the order dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.
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. No. 7572 of 2015 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 7572 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision:- 26.11.2015
Smt. Shila Devi and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Rehman
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Mewat whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs have been dismissed.
The petitioner filed a suit on 20.01.2014 on the basis of agreement to sell dated 06.11.2004 in lieu of Rs.3,00,000/-. Out of Rs.3,00,000/-, petitioners have paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent and the rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. During the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (P-2) and the petitioners gave their reply to the application (P-3). Thereafter, the impugned order was passed and the suit of
the petitioners was dismissed (P-4).
GAURAV ARORA 2015.12.11 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R. No. 7572 of 2015 (O&M)
-2-
The learned Court below after going through the affidavit dated
06.01.2005 held that the purchaser was present before the Registrar for execution of the registered sale deed but seller failed to appear and on 06.01.2005, cause of action arises and thus, the petitioners have to file this suit within 03 years.
The learned Court below has rightly given its finding with regard
to the fact that the suit was barred by limitation, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of Fatehji Co. and other
vs. L.M. Nagpal and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 999
No ground is made out to interfere in order dated 10.09.2015
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Mewat.
The petition is dismissed accordingly.
November 26, 2015 ( RITU BAHRI ) G Arora JUDGE
GAURAV ARORA 2015.12.11 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.
Whether the cause of action arose on 06.01.2005 barring the suit after three years.
If the finding of bar by limitation is correct, is any ground made out for revision under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Fatehji Co. and others vs. L.M. Nagpal and othersRelied on¶22
Fatehji Co. and other vs. L.M. Nagpal and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 999
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Shila Devi and another
Rehman
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
