Dismissed

Udairam Jat v. Devendra Kunwar

Rajasthan HC21 Apr 2023CR/31/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of a Defendant's application for summary dismissal of a suit. The Court upheld the lower court's finding that since the agreement did not specify a performance date, the Limitation Act, 1963 correctly applied a three-year period from the date of refusal to perform.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Udairam Jat Vs Devendra Kunwar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011399]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 31/2023

¶4

Udairam Jat S/o Shri Nanu Ram Ji Jat, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Opposite Hanuman Temple, Ramdev Ji Ka Chanderia, Chittorgarh, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Devendra Kunwar W/o Shri Ranjeet Singh Bhati, Resident Of Dagla Ka Kheda, Chittorgarh, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh.

¶8

Sub-Registrar, Registration And Stamp Department, Chittorgarh.

¶9

Urban Improvement Trust, Through Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Gandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh,

¶10

Tehsildar, Chittorgarh.

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Chittorgarh.

¶12

Icici Bank Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Icici Bank, Branch Chittorgarh.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Babel

¶15

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶16

21/04/2023

¶17

The present civil revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Chittorgarh in Civil Original Suit No.17/2019 whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendant has been rejected.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the suit as preferred by the plaintiffs was specifically barred by law of limitation and therefore, the application as preferred by him under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC

[2023/RJJD/011399]

[CR-31/2023]

(2 of 2)

ought to have been allowed and the suit ought to have been dismissed.

¶23

A perusal of the order impugned shows that the learned Court below has reached to a specific finding that the agreement dated 04.04.2007 did not specify any time limit for execution of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore, in terms of Section 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation of three years would commence only from the date of denial by the party to perform the contract.

¶24

Admittedly, the agreement to sell dated 04.04.2007 did not specify for any time period for performance of the contract, i.e., the execution of the sale-deed and therefore, the limitation definitely commenced only from 03.08.2019, the date when reply to the notice dated 25.07.2019 was given by the defendant whereby he denied execution of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. In the specific opinion of this Court, the finding as reached by the learned Court below is totally in consonance with the provision of law as well as the settled position of law.

¶25

This Court, therefore, does not find any ground for interference in the order impugned and the present civil revision petition is dismissed. 6. All the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶26

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶27

2-T.Singh/-

Udairam Jat v. Devendra Kunwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udairam Jat v. Devendra Kunwar

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

Bhagwan Lal Vs Shri Charbhuja Ji Mandir

Ghasi Ram Vs Ramsukh

Bhur Singh Vs Jodhpur Development Authority

Kishanlal Vs Heera Devi

Kistoor Chand Vs Nemi Chand

Anil Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan