The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. K.S. Arun Kumar Goud The Court made the following: OROER 7 I IION,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CTVIL N PETITI ONN o + OR D ERI This Civit Revision Petition is hled assailing the order dated 22.O7'2024 in I'A'No' 912 of 2023 in O'S'No' 31 of 2r)23ortthelileofthePrincipalDistrictJudge,Vikarabad. Petitioners herein are Defendants t aod 2' the lst 2. respondent is plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 3rd defendant in the suit' Parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arraYed in the suit' Plaintiff frled the suit against Defendants 1 and 2 3. seeking a direction to the 3'd respondent to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.2O guntas in Survey N<-r'8' Acs g' 15 guntas in Survey No'9 and Ac.1'O9 guntas in Survey No lO' total admeasuring Acs.11.O4 guntas situated at Gatepally Villagc' Dharr-rr Mandal' Vikarabad District duly receiving balance consideration of Rs'9 hcs and in the event, the Court finds that sale consideration amount is not paid by defendants I and 2 to the 3rd defendant' they be directed to pay the amount collected from plaintiff on behalf of the 3'd defendant ln the said suit' Defendants I and 2 2 had taken out the subject Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.p.C. to reject the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action and the relief prayed in the suit is barred by limitation.

4. According to Defendants L and, 2, plaintiff pleaded in the suit that the l"t defendant is the owner and possessor of Acs. 12.2O guntas in Survey No.6, Acs.l1.13 guntas in Survey No. 7, Ac. 1.00 in Survey No.l0, total Acs.25.11 guntas; the 2nd defendant in respect of Acs.6.32 guntas in Survey No.5 situated at Busugugada Village, Dharur Mandal and that he obtained agreements on 08.09.2016 from them independently to purchase their respective lands. plaintiff further pleaded that ths Jrd defendant is the owner and possessor of subject land and lhat he obtained agreement of sale on 27 .Og .2O 16 to purchase the said land but the latter refused to register the sale deed though plaintifl paid Rs.4.91 crores and receivecl b1, the 1 st defendant on behalf of Defendants I to 3 and left balance amount o[ Rs.g lacs and that plaintiff is ready and willing to pay Lhe same. It is the case of defendants I and 2 thar in vieu, of the adrnitted case of plaintiff tiat defendants I and 2 had ., already transferred their lands which were the subject matter of agr€ements dated O8'O9'2O16 obtained from them' there is no obligation on their part to enforce the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2016, as such, plaintiff has no cause of action to fiie the present suit against them' The contention of plaintiff that he never negotiated with the 3'd respondent and it is the lst defendant, who was instrumental in getting the agreement of sale executed by the former and that the l't defendant received Rs.4.91 crores for and on behalf of Defendants 1 and 2 and that the3,adefendantfailedtoperformhispartofcontractontheill. advice of the lst defendant is contrary to the documents filed by plaintiff, who came up with such allegations in order to create illusory and sham cause of action to bring the suit against Defendants I and 2' lt is further averred that the suit was hled after lapse of seven years of the agreement' hence' is barred by limitation'

5.Plaintifflrledthecounter_affrdavitintheApplication opposing the aforesaid claim of Defendants 1 and 2' contending that the subject I.A' is only to harass and to drag the proceedings of the suit' It is settled [aw that for adjudication of Application under Order VII Rule l l of CPC., the avcrments made in the plaint only and in this case' it does no[ disr:lose 4 that plaint is barred under law nor that suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action. It is specifrcally pleaded with regard to cause of action, which reads as under: " The above facts constitute the cause of action which accrued to r he plaintiff on O8.O9. 20 16 when the defendants had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of Acres 43-07 Guntas and on various datris q,hen the Defendants No I and 2 had executed sale deeds in respect rf Acres 32-03 Guntas on 30.03.2022, leaving balance of Agricultural land admeasuring Ac 0-2O Gts in Survey No_ g, land admeasuring Ac 9- 15 Gts in Sarvey No 9 and larrd admeasuring Ac l-09 Gts in Survel, No. 10, totally admeasuring Acres 1 l-O4 Guntas situated at Gatepallv Village of Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District to be registered ard \\,hen in 2017bwhen the defendant received the amount from the Plaintilf and on 3O-Q3.2Q22 when last sale deed was executed lea!.ing balance extent of land admeasuring Acres 11-04 Guntas and lastlr on 20 07 2023 when the Plaintiff had notice of refusal of the third Defenciant. to exccute the registered sale deed on regu lar demands being made, since 6.12 2O21. The cause of action still continues" It is the case of plaintiff that the 1"t defendanr agreed to sell rhe land tota-lly admeasuring Acs.43-07 guntas in the above mentioned survey numbers in Burugugadda VillaE4e and Garerpallv Village of Dharur Mandal, vikarabad District for Rs. I I ,58,0oO/ - (Rupees Eleven La-kh Fifty Eight Thousand Only) per acre and agreed to execute ttre sale deed either in his lavour or his norninees, accordingly plaintiff agreed to purchase the saici land from the family of the l$ defendant for a to tal sale consideration of Rs. 4,99,96,65O/- (Rupees Four Crores Ninety 5 Nine l,akhs Ninety Six Thousand Six hundred and Fifty only) and accordingly, three separate agreerrrcnts were executed by Defendants 1 and 2 along with the 3'a defendant in this regard. Defendants 1 and 2 entered into Agreements of Sale dated

08.09.2O16, and the 3d defendant on 27.O9.2016 with plaintiff. It is his further case that defendants had till date registered Acs.32-O3 guntas leaving Acs.11.O4 guntas belonging to the 3rd defendant. Defendants had handed over possession of the property ot 3O-O3-2O22 totalLy admeasuring Acs.43-O7 gunras to plaintiff after receipt of Rs.4.91 crores and is carrying on natural farming. When contacted for execution of sale deed in respect of balance land, Defendants 1 and 2 informed to contact the 3.d defendant directly. On 06.12.202 1, u,hen plaintiff demanded, the 3rd defendant used filthy language and tried to browbeat him, which compelled plaintiff to loclge a complaint with Dharur Police Station and the same resulted in registration of Crime No. 179 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 4O6, 42O, 5O4,506 R/w 34 of IPC. It is contended that provisions oi Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the case as the plaint not only discloses the cause o[ action but also the plaint is not barred by any law. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. (r a The trial Court, after carefully considering the 6. contentions of both the parties, observed that 'viewed in the context of *re suit relicf, if the averments of plaint in paras 1O to 19 in conjunction and after ' a wholesome reading' it is discernible t hat the l"t defendant had negotiated v'ith Plaintiff and took payments for himself as well as on behalf of his wife and son who are Defendants 2 arrd 3 in respect of the property that was sold b1' them including suit schedule Property owned by the 3'a defendant' and relying on the various judgments made a mentiorl in the order, held that there are no merits in this petition and accordingly, dismissed the same, vide order under Revision. Lczrrnecl coutlsel for petitioners Sri Vadeendra Joshi 7. submits thert his clients, pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 08.09.20 i6, had already transferred their lands, as such' they dischargecl their obtigation under tl.e agreement and that there is no , rltligation on their part to enforce the agreement of sale clated 27 .og .2016 said to have been executed between plaintiff and the 3''l defendant in respect of the subject property' It is argucti that as per clause (1) of the agreement dated 27 .O9.2O i6, time fixcd for the purpose of contract was six months akrrrg r[ith extendable tirne period of three months from 7 the date of agreement. Further, it was contended that period of Iimitation for a suit for specifrc performance as prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is three years from the date hxed for performance. As per the plaint averments and the agreement of sale dated 27.O9.2OL6, it is clear that the last date for performance was 27.06.2016, however, plaintiff chose to file the suit after lapse of seven years from the date fixed for the purpose of contract. Therefore, it is contended vehemently by learned counsel that suit is barred by limitation, as such, the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule I 1 CPC. Learned counsel has relied upon the lollorving clecisions, in support of his contentions: I I Chhotanbhen v. Kritibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakka' 2) Salim D.Agboatwala v. Shamafji Oddhavji Thakkarz .l) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of Indiar 4) P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddya 5) Habib Alladin v. Mohammed Ahmeds a)) Legend Estates P!t. Ltd. v. Mir Zaheer Mohammed Khan6 7l Dahiben v.Arvindhbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Dxdied)? 8) Atmananda v. Rarrrakrishna Tapovanams 9) T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapale l O) LT,C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunalto ' AtR tol8 sc 2447 ' ,qtn :o: I sc szt2 I ,ttR ltrlo sc 222 | ' AIR lol5 sc 2485 t :tt:: t t t .,rLo 66 t ' 1018( | ) ALD I ' (1020) 7 SCC 166 s (loo5) to scc 5 t '' (t977)t scc 467 r'' ( lqqAt I scc 70 8 I l) Khatri Hotets Pi,t. Limited v. Uniofl of India ([JOI)tr 12) Ragam Yellaiah v. Chintha Shankaraiafr 12 l3i M.A.E. Kumar Krishna Varma v. Sn f,amoji Rao13 l4i Urvashiben v. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedil4

8. Per contra, learned Senior CoLursel Sri Kishore Rai appearing on behalf of Ms. Divya Rai Sohni, leamed counsel for respondent - plaintiff refuted the objections raised by Defendants 7 and 2, inter alia, contending that the cause of action is a bundle of packages for which PurPose' averments of plaint alone have to be taken into account' According to him, limitation is a mixed question of fact and law' The 1st defendant, who had actively participated in negotiatioos and received substantial part oi sale consideration on behalf of ttre 3d defendant is also liable along with the 2"d defendant who is his wife in the event the suit is decreed, therefore, I.A. is liable to be rejected, conte nded learned Senior Couosel. plaintiff paid Rs.4.9 1 crores to the 3'd defendant and the bqlance Fayable is Rs. 9 lacs and thev refused to execute the sale deed ut respect of the subject l.rncl to gain iltegally and cause \r/ron€f\rl loss to plaintiff, hsr,ing executed the sale deed for tur extent of land admeasuring Ar:s. 32.O4 guntas as on 3O.03.2022 ar\d fr" 3'o defendant being the son of thc l't defendant relusing to execute rr (2o l t) 9 scc t.16 r'? 2oo3 (s) aLT loi 13 zooE(6) At,T 68rj 'a 2019 {t ) all rtst r 9 the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2O16 that too having accepted the consideration is nothing but to avoid execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff. trarned counsel for plaintiff relied upon the following judgments: 1) 2l 3) 4) s) 6l Dahiben v. Arvindbhai tklyanji Bhanusalirs Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Societj' v- Ponniamman Educational Trustr6 Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamset$rr? Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singhr8 Ram Prakash Gupta vs. R4jiv Kumar Guptare N.V Srinivasa Murthy vs. Mariyamm620

9. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the record, this Court records its findings as under: Before delving into the issue, it is apposite to extract Order Vll rule i l, as under: Order VII Rule 77. Rejectlon of Plaint|. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases al whcre ir docs not disclose a cause of action, b) where thc rclief claimed is undervalued, and the pLaintilT on being required b1- the coun to corrcct the valuation within a time to be lixed by tl. e Court' fe ils r(, d, si), cl wh.'re thc relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upot't paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court '' (:o:ot z scc: lo r 'n (20D) 8 scc 706 '' (:o:;t t scc t5s '* (lotot to s(:c 60 t 'n (2007) lo scc ie rr'(loo5r 5 sc('548 10 (- to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by ttle court, fails to do so, D) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: d) Where ir is not filed in duplicate, e) Where the plaintiff fails comply with the provisions of Rule 9, Provided that the time fxed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless t}te couit, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfred that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting t].e valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, 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

10. It is settled principle of law that while dealing with the Petitions filed under Order VII Rule 11, Courts have to be cautious and try to wriggle out the clever drafting of the counsel which has created . illusion of cause of action. The law which dea-ls with the same is extracted hereunder: ln DAHIBE/|{,s cd"se (s-uPra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the undcrlying object of Order VII rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 1 I (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. At Para No.24 of the abovc said J udgment, the Hon'ble. Supreme Court held citing the case law' in Swamg Atmanand "

24. Cause of Action, thus means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can be includes all the material facts on which it is founded". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a. celebrated judgment in T. Aritnndand.q.m v. T.V. S,o:U<rpa.l (1974 4 S;CC 467) held, that while considering an Application under Order VII Rule I I CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words.

5. "The leerned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful - not lormal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O VII R. 11, CpC taking care to see that the ground mentioned there is fulfitled. And, if clever drafting has created illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing." In L.T.C. Ltd. a. Debt Recouery Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 S,CC 7O), tlre Hon'ble Supreme Court held that law cannot permir clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action and what is required is that a clear right must be made out in thc plaint. In Khatri Hotels Pltt., Ltd., & Anr. V. Union of India & Anr., ((2O11) 9 SCC 126) held that the use of the word 1l (- 'first' between the words 'sue' and 'accrued'would mean that if a suit is based on multiPle causes of action' the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue flrst accrues. That is, if there are successive violation of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action' and the suitwillbeliabietobedismissed,ifitisbeyondtheperiodof limitationcountedfromthedatewhentherighttosuefirst accrued. It is also settled law that whether plaint discloses I 1. cause of action or not should be determined on the basis of the averments made in the plaint alone and in order tc' ascertain the same, plaint has to be read in a meaningful manncr and the Court cannot consider the merits of the matter at that stage' In that regard, reliance has been made on the judgmcnt h *IAE K:rrtn:arr Kt'lshno- varna o. RoirlLoii Roo (suprQ' It is also held in the said judgment that if the plaint discloses some cause of action, the same is sufficient even though the ohances of success for the plaintiff in the suit are remote' On bare perusal of the plaint, it is clearly evident 12. that the l"t defendant being the father of the 2ud defendant' stood in forefront with respect to the transactions between plaintill ancl Defendants I and 2 on thc one hand :rnd the 3'd l3 defendant on the other. In that regard, the l't defendant had negotiated with plaintiff and took payments for himself as well as on behalf of his wife and son i.e. Defendants 2 and 3 respectively in respect of the property sold by ttrem which also included the suit schedule property owned by the 3rd defendant. It is the speci{ic pleading of plaintiff that he never negotiated with the 3'd defendant and it is the lst defendant who was instrumental in getting the agrcement of sale executed by the 3rd defendant after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.4.91 crores and on behalf of defendants I arrd 2, as per the receipts executed by the l"t defendant. To buttress the contention that the I "t defendant was instrumental in getLing the properties registered in favour of plaintiff, it is germane to refer to para 18 of the plaint. " la. That the Plaintiff states that the D€fendant No. 3 have also Iiled an application to quash the FIR in Crime No. 779 of 2O2l wide Crl. P. No. 2434 of 2023 and filed the receipts for ttre amount of Rs.4,91,00,OOO/ -and pteaded that in so far as Defendants No. 3 is concerned the Defendant no. 3 had not received the balance of sale consideration as such had not executed the sate deed, which fact is false and incorrect as Defendant no. 3 never negotiated with the Plaintiff as it was only the Defendant no. I who had negotiated and only Defendant no' I took the payments for himsetf as uell as on behalf of his wife and son. Therefore, the contention of the third Defendant is absolutely false and- incorrect, as the Plaintiff never negotiated rvith the third Defendant and it is the first Defendant $ho r(,as instrumental in getting the agreement of l4 (- sale executed by the thkd Defendant and had received a sum of Rs.4,91,0O,O00/ - (Rupees Four Crores Ninety One I'akh ontv) for and on behalf of the Defendants as per receipts executed by the Defendant no' 1 ' i3. From the conspectus of the above facts' one can easily divulge that the lst defendant represented both Defendants 2 and 3 and in addition, it is also a fact from the averments of the plaint that plaintiff had also issued legal notice d.ated 2O.O7 .2023 callilg upon the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property. Further, it is the specilic claim of plaintilf that the l"t defendant having received substantial sale corlsideration even on behalf of the 3'd defendant, who is none other than his own son, cannot disown his role and responsibilitv Plilintiff also claimed that the 1st defendant has not even denied hrs claim of receiving tht: sale consideration on behalf of the 3"r dcll'ndant as such, the contention of defendants in their Pctition that they discharged their obligation under agreement ol sale by executing the registered sale deeds in favour of plaintilT does not hold water. It is also settled law that cause of action is not pure

14. question of law but it is a mixed queslion o[ fact and law' Admittedly, plaintiff had specifically pleaded about t l-re role / 15 responsibility of defendants I and 2 with respect to executing the sale deeds by the 3'd defendant in his favour' When such is the clear averment with respect to defendants I ar,d 2 and also ttre specific prayer sought in the plaint with respect to seeking a directionfromtheCourtthatpetitionersmaybedirectedto transfer the sale consideration to the 3'd defendant which was already paid by plaintiff to Defendants 1 and 2' it clearly denotes the factum of role of Defendants 1 and 2 in adjudicating tlle suit for specifrc performance of agreement of sale' When these many factual aspects are yet to be gone into by the trial Court, rejection of plaint, at this sage' cannot be ordered; more so, this Court comes to the conclusion that plaint discloses causeofactionsincetheroleandresponsibilityofDefendantsl and 2 is intrinsically connected u'ith that of the 3'd defendant in executing the sale deed in favour o[ plaintiff' Insofar as the contention that suit is barred by 15. limitation, it is to be noted that plea of limitation is always a mixed question of fact and law' In Uruashiben o' Krishnakant Manuprasad ?Ilttredi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and Iaw and it cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a plaint' Further, as the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and a 16 law, as held by a 3-Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Shlrkti Bhog Food. Industries Limtted. Vs. Central Bank of India (supra), plaint canqot be rejected on the ground of limitation. In any event, this Court is of the view that the issue relating to limitation aspect can as well be framed during the course of trial in the suit, which can be adjudicated upon by adducing oral and documentaqr evidence by both the sides in the suit, on merits. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V.Gr.trtt Raj Reddg a. p. Neeradha Reddg (supra) categoricallv held that rejection of plaint is a step of drastic nature and while rexercising of power under the provisions of Order VII Ruie 11 CPC only the averments in plaint have to be read as a 'vhole and the starrd of defendants in the written statement cir in application for rejection of plaint is rvholl_v itnmater.ial .it that stage and that the plaint can be re,iected only i[ the averments made therein ex-facie do not disclose the cause of action and on a reading thereof, the suit appears to be barred under law'.

16. Having regard to the proposition of lau, and also u,ith respect to the reasons given in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court comes to the conclusion that it cannot be said that plaintitl'does not disclose any cause of action or is lhe suit is 1l barred by limitation. The finding given by the trial Court is in consonance with the above proposition of law as well as the reasoning given by this Court Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under Revision' Accordingly' the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed' t7 No costs. i8. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly' dismissed Consequently, miscellaneous Applications' il any shall stand closed. I Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REOOY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// . SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judqe' Vikarabad' i. o"" ci t"" sti Vadeendraioshi' AdvocateloPucl ;. il; & io sti oiuv' Rai Sohni' Advocate [oPUC]--^, ;. 5;; ca i; r',vt xs' Arun Kumar Goud' Advocate [oPUCl 5. Two CD Copies , kam/DL I HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER CRP.No.2694 of 2024 1 gE SI47 t x O 0 3 lIAl1 2825 )2t {) lsp/.\ rC\. r:t) \ I 2 ]. +t DISMISS'ING OF THE CIVIL REVISIONI PETITION