1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/original defendant against the order dated 4.7.2011 passed by learned Principal Civil Judge, Bahucharaji in Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2011, by which, application of the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) came to be rejected on the ground that neither the law of limitation applies in the facts and circumstances of the case when the plaintiffs/respondents herein who had entered into an agreement of sale as early as on 21.11.1989 for the consideration of Rs.50,000/- came to know about attempts made by petitioner/defendant to sell such land and, therefore, the cause of action as declared in the plaint was on 6.4.2011. Thus, the law of limitation ordinarily of three years for specific performance was considered by the Court below from the date of knowledge of the plaintiffs that defendant was likely to sell the land which took place on 6.4.2011, which ultimately turn out to be true and the defendant sold the land in the month of May, 2011 and the above fact remain undisputed.
2. In the above circumstances, contention of defendant as raised in the application and also before this Court that suit was barred by limitation is not only misconceived but contrary to law.
3. With regard to inadequate payment of Court fees, admittedly, the agreement dated 21.11.1989 was for the consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and accordingly, the Court below has found sufficient Court fees was paid and, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Civil Judge rejecting the application submitted by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) cannot be said to in any manner contrary to law and in absence of merit no case is made out for any interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Notice discharged.
4. Status-quo granted vide order dated 27.7.2011 stands vacated.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top