Parveen Kumar Vs Rakesh Mittal

The pe��oner–defendant has invoked the revisional jurisdic�on of this Court to assail the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jind, whereby his applica�on under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejec�on of the plaint, in civil Suit bearing CS No. CS-832-2025 �tled ‘Rakesh Mi�al Vs. Parveen Kumar’ has been dismissed.

¶11

The facts, in brief, are that the respondent–plain�ff ins�tuted a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 11.01.2020, asser�ng that a total sale considera�on of ₹71 lakhs was se8led, out of which a sum of ₹50 lakhs stood paid as earnest money and part payment. The s�pulated date for execu�on of the sale deed was 31.12.2020. However, the plain�ff pleaded that the suit property was under an equitable mortgage on account of a substan�al loan obtained by the defendant and his brothers, which fact was not disclosed at the �me of execu�on 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 plain�ff. According to the plain�ff, the cause of ac�on arose

¶12

SARITA RANI 2026.04.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶13

CR No.3509 of 2026 (O&M)

¶14

2026:PHHC: 062856

¶15

upon refusal by the defendant, culmina�ng in the filing of the suit on 10.12.2025.

¶16

The defendant–pe��oner filed an applica�on under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejec�on of the plaint, primarily on the ground that the suit is barred by limita�on, as the date fixed for performance was 31.12.2020 and the suit has been ins�tuted beyond the prescribed period of three years under Ar�cle 54 of the Limita�on Act, 1963. It was also contended that the plain�ff had no subsis�ng cause of ac�on, par�cularly in view of pending evic�on and execu�on proceedings concerning the suit property.

¶17

The said applica�on was opposed by the plain�ff by contending that the limita�on 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 posi�on to perform the contract due to subsis�ng encumbrance over the property. It was further asserted that the cause of ac�on arose only upon redemp�on of the mortgage and subsequent refusal by the defendant to execute the sale deed, and therefore, the suit was well within limita�on. It was also pleaded that the ques�on of limita�on, in the given circumstances, is a mixed ques�on of law and fact.

¶18

The learned trial Court, upon considera�on of the rival submissions and the material on record, dismissed the applica�on by holding that while adjudica�ng an applica�on 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 limita�on, in the present case, involves disputed ques�ons of fact, par�cularly with regard to the effect of encumbrance on the property and the conduct of the par�es, and therefore, the same cannot be decided at the threshold.

¶19

Assailing the above order, Learned counsel for the pe��oner has vehemently contended before this Court that once a specific date for performance i.e. 31.12.2020 was fixed in the agreement, the limita�on necessarily commenced from that date, and the suit having been filed in

¶20

SARITA RANI 2026.04.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

CR No.3509 of 2026 (O&M)

¶23

2026:PHHC: 062856

¶24

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 rejec�ng the plaint despite the apparent bar of limita�on.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the pe��oner and having perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the present revision pe��on.

¶26

It is a se8led principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an applica�on 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 rejec�on of plaint can be exercised only when the bar to the suit is apparent on the face of the plaint itself.

¶27

In the present case, a meaningful reading of the plaint (Annexure P-1) shows that the plain�ff has specifically pleaded that the property in ques�on was under an equitable mortgage and that the defendant was not in a posi�on to execute the sale deed on the s�pulated 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 star�ng point of limita�on is itself a ma8er requiring adjudica�on.

¶28

The ques�on as to whether the limita�on would commence from the date fixed for performance or from the date of refusal, in the backdrop of alleged encumbrance and conduct of the par�es, cannot be determined without evidence. It is, thus, a classic case where the issue of limita�on is a mixed ques�on of law and fact.

¶29

It is also noteworthy that the period directed to be excluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in _Suo Motu Writ Peon (C) No. 3 of 2020_** on account of the COVID-19 pandemic would also have a bearing on computa�on of limita�on, which further reinforces that the issue cannot be decided summarily.

¶30

SARITA RANI 2026.04.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

CR No.3509 of 2026 (O&M)

¶33

2026:PHHC: 062856

¶34

The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly concluded that the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold and that the ma8er requires adjudica�on on merits a=er the par�es lead evidence.

¶35

This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdic�on, 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 jurisdic�onal error, no interference is warranted. The order under challenge reflects a correct applica�on of se8led legal principles and does not call for any interference.

¶36

Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision pe��on, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Pending applica�ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶38

April 24, 2026 Sarita

¶39

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶40

SARITA RANI 2026.04.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Parveen Kumar v. Rakesh Mittal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar v. Rakesh Mittal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rashid Husan and Others

(O&M) Jagdish etc. Vs Ram Niwas etc.

Major Singh Vs Hakam Singh and Ors.

Coldserve Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Snowman Logistics Ltd. and Anr.

Jai Kishan and Ors. Vs Yogender Panwar

Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Ltd. Vs Gurpreet Singh and Others