Haryana v. Suncity Projects Private Limited, Through Authorized

----Petitioners/Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 Versus

1. Suncity Projects Private Limited, Through Authorized Representative Manoj Narenia, General Manager Law, Address- Jewel Of India, J.l.n Marg, Jaipur. Registered Office Of Company Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Plot A, Sector B, Pocket 5, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Earlier Registered Office N 49, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Corporate Office Suncity Business Tower, Second Floor, Folf Course Road, Sector-54, Gurugram (Haryana)-

122002. ---Respondent-Plaintiff

2. Attar Singh Bisoya S/o T.s Verma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o B-67/1, South Extension 2, Greater Kailash, S.o. South Delhi-10048.

3. Sanjay Kavatra S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 54 Years, R/o M.d 17, Emaar Marbella, Sector 66, Baadshahpur, Gurgaon (Gurugram), Haryana 122101. ----Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mudit Singhvi, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv. & Ms. Priya Khushlani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N K Maloo, Sr. Adv. with [2025:RJ-JP:33309] (2 of 6) [CR-253/2025] Mr. Harsh Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Pratyush Sharma, Adv., Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv. & Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 25 /08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (for short 'the defendants') against the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metro-II (for short 'the trial Court')in civil suit No.14/2024 (95/2024) whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 08.08.2005 and permanent injunction against the defendants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and the trial Court vide order dated 21.05.2025 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants because suit was filed for specific performance of the contract dated 08.08.2005 and only photocopy of the aforesaid agreement was filed. Original agreement was not in power and possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff in his plaint [2025:RJ-JP:33309] (3 of 6) [CR-253/2025] clearly mentioned that the said original agreement was taken away by Vijay Kumar Yadav. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that a perusal of the averments made in the plaint as well as the agreement clearly reveals that nothing remained to be performed. Said agreement is nothing but an executed sale deed because no obligation on the part of either of the party is to be performed. As per the agreement, whole payment was made and possession was also handed over. So, the said agreement is an executed conveyance deed and it had to be registered within 4 months. As per Section 23 of the Registration Act, the said agreement was not registered within 4 months, so, it is not executable. As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, suit with regard to specific performance of the contract is to be filed within 3 years from the date of execution of the so-called agreement. In the present case, the suit was not filed within 3 years of the execution of the so-called agreement i.e. 08.08.2005. So, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. By clever drafting, the plaintiff had given a notice in the year 2022 to bring the suit within the period of limitation. So, the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by limitation. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. Durga Shankar Bareth Vs. Shayam Lal in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5511/2021 decided on 19.09.2022.

2. Ramesh Mishrimal Jain Vs. Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 213. [2025:RJ-JP:33309] (4 of 6) [CR-253/2025]

3. Shankar Lal & Ors. Vs. The Civil Judge (J.D.) & Ors. reported in MANU/RH/0183/2006.

4. Hariom Agrawal Vs. Prakash Chand Malviya reported in MANU/SC/7993/2007.

5. Fateh Lal Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Ors. reported in MANU/RH/0912/2009.

6. Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. Vs. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported MANU/SC/0659/2025.

7. Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead thr. Legal Representatives and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC

366. Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendants and submitted that while deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only averments of the plaint are to be considered, and not the defence of the defendants. In plaint as well as in the agreement, it was clearly mentioned that sale deed would be registered on the request of the plaintiff. So, no time limit was mentioned in the agreement. Defendants refused to get the sale deed executed. So, second limb of the Article 54 of the Limitation Act is to be applied in this case and the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that question with regard to limitation being mixed question of law and fact, cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that defendants admitted the so-called agreement and received the consideration. As per their contention, they had cancelled the [2025:RJ-JP:33309] (5 of 6) [CR-253/2025] agreement and returned the money. There was no evidence with regard to return of the money and cancellation of the agreement and these questions would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments-:

1. Urvashiben and Anr. Vs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi reported in (2019) 13 SCC 372.

2. Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah & Ors. Vs. Anton Elis Earel & Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 634.

3. Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. Lajja Ram & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 5331: (2023) 4 RLW 3489.

4. Rathnavathi and Anr. Vs. Kavita Ganashamdas reported in (2015) 5 SCC 223.

5. S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401.

6. R. Hemalatha Vs. Kashthuri reported in AIR 2025 SC 1895.

7. LRs of Magna Vs. Amar Chand & Ors. reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Raj 582: (2007) 3 RLW 2200: (2007) 51 AIC (Sum 11) 7: (2007) 1 WLC 38.

8. Dr. Chiranji Lal (d) by LRs Vs. Hari Das (D) by LRs. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 746. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendants as well as learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for specific performance of the contract dated 08.08.2005 and permanent injunction. With regard [2025:RJ-JP:33309] (6 of 6) [CR-253/2025] to limitation, plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that, plaintiff had given a notice on 03.08.2022 and also sent the reminder on

20.12.2022. A perusal of the agreement reveals that, consideration was paid on 08.08.2005 and possession was handed over. From 2005 to 2022, the plaintiff had not taken any step for registration of the sale deed. By way of clever drafting, the plaintiff had created limitation by giving notice and reminder. When whole payment was made and possession was handed over, there was no occasion not to execute the sale deed at that time. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is allowed; the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by limitation. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/103 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J