Dismissed

Mega Suryaurja Private Limited v. Bhanwar Singh

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2023CR/217/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of a plaint for specific performance. The Court held that plaint rejection in part is impermissible, time-barred averments require evidentiary proof, and POA validity is a procedural issue beyond Order 7 Rule 11.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; findings of the Court below upheld; stay and pending applications disposed of.

Mega Suryaurja Private Limited Vs Bhanwar Singh — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:42368]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 217/2023

¶4

Mega Suryaurja Private Limited, Registered Office Worli Mumbai Through Its Authorised Representative, Jitendra Soni S/o Shri Jagdish Soni, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Tripoliya Market Khadi Bhanwar Ke Pass, Phalodi, District Jodhpur. (Defendant No. 8)

¶5

Jitendra Soni S/o Shri Jagdish Soni, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Tripoliya Market Khadi Bhanwar Ke Pass, Phalodi, District Jodhpur. (Defendant No. 9)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Sadul Singh, R/o Village Chani, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner Through Power Of Attorney Gautam Chand Sankhla S/o Shri Parasmal Ji, Resident Hanuvantpura Jodhpur. (Plaintiff)

¶9

Gulab Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ganpatram, Resident Of Kusumbi, Tehsil Ladnun, District Nagaur, Presently Resident Of J-232, In Front Of Sanskar School, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. (Defendant No. 1)

¶10

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hardattarai Sharma, Resident Of Village Dhyaba, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur. (Defendant No. 2)

¶11

Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Ganpatram, Resident Of Rays Power Inba P-Ltd, D 33 Iind Flor Sodda Janpath Shyam Nagar Jaipur. (Defendant No. 3)

¶12

Pawan Kuamr S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Resident Of Hall Rays Power Inba P-Ltd, D 33 Iind Flor Sodda Janpath Shyam Nagar Jaipur. (Defendant No. 4)

¶13

Paramveer Sharma S/o Shri Gulabchand Sharma, Resident Of J-232, In Front Of Sanskar School, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. (Defendant No. 5)

¶14

Anand Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Ganpatram, Resident Of Kusumbi, Tehsil Ladanu, District Nagaur. (Defendant No. 6)

¶15

Shresth Urja, Through Its Authorised Person Pahad Singh S/o Shri Nagsingh, R/o Village Ravra, Tehsil Bap, District Jodhpur. (Defendant No. 7)

¶16

[2023:RJ-JD:42368]

¶17

[CR-217/2023]

¶18

2023:RJ-JD:42368]	(2 of 4)	[CR-217/2023 ----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anirudh Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Tatia

¶19

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶20

Order

¶21

06/12/2023

¶22

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner in Civil Suit No.160/2021 whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as preferred by defendant Nos.8 & 9 has been rejected.

¶23

Three grounds have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court. Firstly , that the agreement in question of which the specific performance is being sought, was executed only by defendant Nos.1 & 2 and defendant Nos.3 to 6 were not a party to it. Therefore, the said defendants cannot be directed to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, they being not the party to the agreement. Secondly , the specific performance of the agreement executed in the year 2016 has been sought in the year 2021. The same is clearly time barred as it was the specific term of the agreement that the execution of the same would be called upon/made within a period of 60 days. Thirdly , the present suit has been preferred by Bhanwar Singh through his power of attorney holder Gautam Chand Sankhla and a bare perusal of the power of attorney as annexed along with the plaint makes it clear that, in effect, Bhanwar Singh has entered into an agreement to sell in favour of Gautam Chand Sankhla and

[2023:RJ-JD:42368]

[CR-217/2023]

(3 of 4)

hence, the person in whose favour an agreement to sell has been executed cannot be the power of attorney holder.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

So far as the first ground regarding the agreement having been executed only by defendant Nos.1 & 2 is concerned, a bare perusal of the agreement makes it clear that the same has been executed by defendant Nos.1 & 2 on behalf of other defendants (owners). The agreement specifies the cheque numbers and the amount issued in favour of the other defendants i.e. defendant Nos.3 to 6 also. Further, the objection/ground has not been raised by the said defendants.

¶30

Moreover, even if it is assumed that no relief in the present suit can be granted against defendants No.3 to 6, the suit would definitely survive against the other defendants. As is the settled position of law, a plaint cannot be rejected in part.

¶31

By all means, the plaint cannot be rejected on the said ground.

¶32

So far as the question of the suit being time barred is concerned, a bare perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has specifically averred that there was an interim order operating during the relevant point of time and further, there were several litigations pending which ultimately were disposed in the year 2021. Soon after that, because of the Covid pandemic, there was a complete lock down and hence, the suit could not be preferred.

¶33

In the specific opinion of this Court, the averments as made in the plaint clearly spell out the reasons for the suit to be filed with delay. Whether the said reasons are correct/plausible or valid could be decided only after an issue being framed qua the same

[2023:RJ-JD:42368]

[CR-217/2023]

(4 of 4)

and evidence being led on the same. By all means, the said question/issue being a mixed question of fact and law, cannot be decided on an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

¶38

So far as the suit been filed by the plaintiff through his power of attorney holder is concerned, whether the same is maintainable in terms of law and whether the power of attorney holder has a locus standi to prefer the said suit also cannot be decided on an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and neither the same can be a ground for rejection of a plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

¶39

In view of the above observations, the findings as arrived by the Court below cannot be interfered with and the present revision petition is hence, dismissed . 8. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶40

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶41

302-KashishS/-

Mega Suryaurja Private Limited v. Bhanwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mega Suryaurja Private Limited v. Bhanwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepa and Anr. Vs Girdhari and Anr.

Sunil Kumar and Anr. Vs Virendra Singh and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs Rajendra Kumar Daga

Babar Khan Vs Abdul Gaffar

Parasmal Vs Narayan Lal

Phool Kanwar Vs Sher Singh