K.Valarmathi and Others v. Kumaresan

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OS.no.188l2O22 on the file of learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Warangal, Warangal District, pending the disposal of Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. MADIRAJU PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: J DHEERAJ REDDY The Gourt mad,a the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3467 of 2o23 ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in t.A.No.86 of 2022 in O.S.No.188 of 2022, dated I3.O9.2O23 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. Petitioner herein is the petitioner-defendant No.8, respondent Nos.l and 2 are the respondent No.1 and 2-plaintiffs, respondent Nos.3 to 9 are other respondents-defendants in I.A.No.86 of 2022, which is filed under Order VII Rule 1 1 of CPC to reject the plaint i.e., O.S.No.188 of 2022.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed for rejection of plaint. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that petitioner has specifically pleaded that she is neither a part5r to the agreement of sale dated L2.O5.2O11 between respondent Nos.1 and.2-plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendant Nos.l to 7, there is no transaction as such and there is no cause of action for respondent a -'- .i- : 'l : Il I a BRMR,J CRP.No.3467 of 2023 2 Nos.1 arrd 2-plaintiffs to implead and add the petitioner-defendant No.8 in the suit.

3.2. Learncd trial Court erred in rejecting the petition on the ground l.hat the respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendant Nos.l to 7 and petitioner herein are taking steps to compromise the earlier suit in O.S.No.666 of 20 1 1 to defraud the rights of the respondent Nos. i and 2-plaintiffs which is not sufficient to constitute any cause of action zrgainst the petitioner herein in a suit for specilic performance of agreement of sale.

3.3. Learned trial court has erred that the contentions raised thereon are mixed question of fact and [aw, hence, they cannot be decided ert this stage even though there are no specific pleadings by the respc,ndent Nos.l and 2 - plaintiffs, admittedly the petitioner is not a party to the alleged agreement of sale and the suit itself is not maintainable against the petitioner and prayed to set aside the impugnerl order.

4. Nol:ices sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs are served, None appears for them.

5. Porver of the High court under Article 227 of constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribuntsls under its supervision act within the limits of their \ BRMR,J CRP.No.3467 of 20.23 jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC Online SC 985).

6.L Respondent No.l and 2 - plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.O5.20IL in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4-32 guntas in different survey numbers with specific boundaries.

6.2 It is stated in the plaint that respondent Nos.3 to 9- defendant Nos.l to 7 came forward to sell the suit schedule proirerty and the sale consideration is fixed at R.s.1O,OO,O00 I - per acre for Ac.4-32 guntas. Accordingly, an agreement of sale is executed on 12.05.2OL1. The total sale consideration for the entire property is Rs.48,OO,OO0/-. In total, respondent Nos.l and 2 - plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.44,5O,OO0/- to respondent Nos.3 to 9 - defendant Nos.l to 7 on different dates and the leftover amount is Rs.3,50,OOO/-. \-/\ ,..t I -l BRMR,J CRP.No.3467 of 2023 4

6.3 Plrint paragraph No.7 goes to show that the petitioner- defendant No.8 has hled civil suit uide O.S.No.666 of 20 11 against respondt:nt Nos.3 to 9 - defendant Nos.l to 7 in respect of the suit schedule propert5l. It is [urtirer averred that the petitioner, respondont Nos.3 to 9 - defendant Nos. I to 7 in order to defraud the rights of respondent Nos.l and 2 - plaintiffs are taking speedy efforts tc compromise the suit in O.S.No.666 of 20 I 1 and planning to aliene-te the suit schedule property in favour of third parties, which the plaintiffs came to know recently as the defendant Nos-l to 7 ancl petitioner herein (defendant No.8) are contacting third parties to alienate the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs (respond,ent Nos.l to 2 herein) have issued a legal notice on

24.06.2017 to all the defendants.

6.4. Th,e prayer in the suit is directing the defendant Nos.1 to 8 (respond,:nt No.3 to 9 and petitioner herein) to come forward to receive 1.he balance sale consideration of Rs.3,5O,OOOl- from plaintiffs (respondent Nos.l and 2 herein) and execute the registere<l sale deed, and to grant injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 8 (respondent Nos-3 to 9 and petitioner herein) from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third . \ Partres. '\ ./ '"1 BRMR,J CRP.No.3467 of 2023 5

7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their counter in I.A.No.86 of 2022, stating that there is a cause of action against the petitioner-defendant No.8 and she is a necessary party in the suit.

8. l,earned trial Court taking into consideration the contentions raised by the parties has held that the contentions raised thereon are mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be decided at this stage unless a full fledged trial is conducted, thereby dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Usha Devi and others vs Ram Kumar Singh and othersl paragraph No.9 is as under: Coming to the facts of the present case, we find that in the 9. agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sile deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement. The period of one month would expire on 16.01.t990, and once there is a specific date fixed for performance, the limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993. The trial court thus held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed in September 1993'

10. After execution of agreement of sale in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs by respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendant Nos.1 to 7, suit in oS No.666 of 2011 came to be hled by the petitioner- defendant No.8. L zoze 61 : // 6 CRP.No.3467 of 2023

11. In Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole and others vs. Rohit Enterprises and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court heid that "it is well settled that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and unless the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non-suiting a plaintiff'.

12. As per the agreement of sale dated L2.O5.2O11, balance sale consideration of Rs.12,8O,OOO/- is to be paid by the purchaser on or before Ll.o5.2oL2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs made payments to respondent No.3-defendant No.l in the year 2OL2, 2013, 2(tL4 and in the month of January, 2O15. The last payment made b1' respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs to respondent No.3- defendarrt No.l is an amount of Rs.40,5OO/- uide cash receipt deited O1..O1.2O15. Suit is hled by the respondent Nos.l and 2- plaintiff r>n 28.08.2017 which is within three years from the date of last pay:rnent i.e., 01.01.2015. It cannot be said that the time stipulatel for filing the suit is barred by limitation.

13. Th,: learned trial court has properly appreciated the contentic'n raised by the parties therein and rightly dismissed the ab{ication filed by the petitioners for rejecting the plaint. The scope of r\rticle 227 of the Constitution of India is limitedT4_1iew of 2 stt 1cl Nc.16809 of zozs dated 17.11.2025 Supreme /-2 '?'F' Court of India , t 7 BRMR,J CRP.No.3467 of 2023 the decision of the Honble supreme court stated supra in paragraph No.S.

14. The petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by thc learned trial court. Hence, the civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

15. Accordingly, this civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order aS, to costs. Interim orders if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitionls shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/- MED ABDULLA KHAN ANT REG ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Addl. District Judge, Warangal, Warangal District. 2- one cc to sRl. MADIRAJU PRABHAKAR RAo Advocate topucl 3. One CC to SRl. J DHEERAJ REDDY Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies PIdDDN Y{- I / HIGH COURT BRMR,J DATED i2011112025 OF+rsR cRP.No.3r467 0t 2023 ETl't t .i-) I 2 t B F 2026 * * CIVIL REVISION PEITITION IS DISMISSED. *Y(A G tr;+ i ! I ?