Ramesh Chand Sharma S/O Shri Ram Chandra Sharma Vs Om Prakash Sharma S/O Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma

[2026:RJ-JP:9613]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 98/2026

Ramesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ram Chandra Sharma, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Ranthambor Marriage Garden Hammir Circle, Bajriya Sawai Madhoupr.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Alanpur Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur At Present Resident Of F-1, R 14/201 Shree Ram Residency Kamla Nehru Nagar Ajmer Road Jaipur.

¶8

Sub Registrar, Sawai Madhopur.

¶9

Land Holder, Tehsildar Sawai Madhopur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Sh. Brij Bhushan Ojha For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

06/03/2026

¶15

The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant/petitioner by assailing the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur, in Civil Suit No. 17/2025 titled as Omprakash Vs. Rameshchand & Ors. whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the suit for specific performance of the contract dated 22.07.1994 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent in the year 2025. The aforesaid suit is clearly barred by provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, more particularly Articles 56, 57, and 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He

[2026:RJ-JP:9613]

[CR-98/2026]

(2 of 5)

further submits that, as per the agreement dated 22.07.1994, the plaintiff was supposed to get the sale deed registered, but he did not show any readiness and willingness to do the same; therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff was never willing to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, the present suit is barred by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

¶21

Heard

¶22

Before proceeding further, it would be apt to reproduce Order

¶23

7 Rule 11 CPC which reads as under:-

¶24

" Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

¶25

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

¶26

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶27

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶28

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

¶29

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

¶30

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.

¶31

[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] "

¶32

From perusal of record of the case, it is evident that the suit for specific performance of contract dated 22.07.1994 was filed on 05.02.2025 in the said suit, the plaintiff has averred that on 03.02.2025 the present petitioner has denied the execution of sale deed, therefore, the suit has been filed.

(3 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:9613]

[CR-98/2026]

It would be apt at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which is reproduced as under:-

¶37

*Article* *No.*	*Description of* *suit*	*Period of* *limitation*	*Time from which period* *begins to run*
54	For Specific performance of a contract.	Three years	The date fixed for the performance, or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

¶38

Thus, it is well settled that Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, governs suits seeking specific performance of a contract and prescribes a period of limitation of three years from the date fixed for the performance, or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

¶39

In the matter of P. Kumarakurubaran Vs. P. Narayanan

¶40

& Ors.¹ , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

¶41

"12.1. However, we are of the considered view that the issue as to whether the appellant had prior notice or reason to be aware of the transaction at an earlier point of time, or whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge is credible, are matters that necessarily require appreciation of evidence. At this preliminary stage, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true. Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation without permitting the parties to lead evidence, is legally unsustainable."

¶42

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶43

In the present case, the plaintiff in the plaint has averred that the present petitioner refused the performance of the contract on 03.02.2025. Thus, in view of the above judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court, at this preliminary stage, such an assertion made by the plaintiff must be taken at its face value, and the issue of limitation in the present matter has become a

¶44

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 975

[2026:RJ-JP:9613]

[CR-98/2026]

(4 of 5)

mixed question of fact and law which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

¶49

From a bare perusal of the record, it is evidently clear that the present suit cannot be dismissed as being barred by law at this stage. Since the question of Limitation, as well as the fact as to when the plaintiff noticed that the performance of the contract was refused, and the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, are all mixed questions of law and fact, which are to be tried in the main suit after framing of issues and evidence being led by the parties, and cannot be dealt with at the preliminary stage of the suit proceedings. Therefore, arguments so raised by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶50

Apart from the above, on a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 15.01.2026, it is evident that the learned Court below has duly considered the averments in the plaint, objections so raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and as well as the relevant provisions of law while passing the impugned order, and has rightly held that the objections so raised in the said application do not fall within the four corners of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

¶51

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity so as to warrant any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

[2026:RJ-JP:9613]

[CR-98/2026]

(5 of 5)