Dismissed

Shabina Bano v. Meeru Khan

Rajasthan HC20 Jan 2021CR/30/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a revision petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to set aside a plaint barred by limitation. The Court held that limitation for specific performance begins when performance is refused (date of sale deed), not the agreement date, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order of below trial court.

Shabina Bano Vs Meeru Khan — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 30/2020

¶3

Shabina Bano W/o Mohammed Arif Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Chaynano Ki Pole, Deen Darwaja Road, Deedwana, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Meeru Khan S/o Nanu Khan, R/o Rajeev Gandhi Colony, Behind Bachchhraj School, Jeevan Nagar Road, Katlabas, Deedwana, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)

¶7

Rahisa Bano W/o Salim Khan, R/o Kasaiyon Ki Bari, Khatiko Ka Mohalla, Bikaner

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kan Singh Oad For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶11

Order

¶12

20/01/2021

¶13

This revision petition is directed against order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

¶14

Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 14.09.2018 inter alia on the basis that an agreement to sale dated 30.07.2012 was executed by defendant No.1 in his favour and he was put in possession of the suit property, however, the property has been transferred to defendant No.2.

¶15

As no prayer seeking specific performance of contract was made, an application under Order VI Rule 17 was filed seeking amendment in the plaint, which was granted by the trial court.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CR-30/2020]

¶18

The petitioner filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia on the ground that the suit filed was barred by limitation and, therefore, the same was liable to be rejected.

¶19

The trial court by its impugned order, came to the conclusion that the limitation for filing the suit for specific performance would begin from the date, the performance is refused and as the sale deed was executed on 05.10.2018, the suit was within limitation.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the trial court committed error in rejecting the application, inasmuch as, the agreement was executed in the year 2012 and the suit was filed in the year 2018 and, therefore, the same was ex-facie barred by limitation.

¶21

Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) through Lrs & Ors.:- 2020 (3) DNJ (SC) 958.

¶22

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

¶23

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a limitation of three years for a suit for specific performance of a contract and the limitation begins to run from the date fixed for performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The submission made that the limitation would start from the date of agreement itself has no basis. The trial court, based on the material available on record, was justified in coming the conclusion that on execution of the sale deed, the cause of action arose to the plaintiff, which would amount to refusing the performance of the agreement, as such the finding recorded by the trial court cannot be faulted.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CR-30/2020]

¶26

So far as judgment in the case of Dahiben (supra) is concerned, the same was a case of cancellation of the sale deed by the executant of the sale deed and it was found that the executant was himself aware of the execution on the date when the sale deed was registered and, therefore, the limitation would start from the said date. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.

¶27

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. The petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶28

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶29

4-Sachin/-

Shabina Bano v. Meeru Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabina Bano v. Meeru Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanyogita Vs Rohit Modi

Acto,W-I, Cir.-a, Sriganganagar Vs M/S Chanan Ram Satpal

Acto Ward I Circle a Sriganganagar Vs M/S Chanan Ram Satpal Sriganganagar

Rehana Vs Mohd Insaf

Chief Manager, R,S,R,T,C and Anr. Vs Rinku Kalal and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Vs Ugma Devi