IMPORTANT POINT
Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d), CPC requires that plaint should disclose a cause of action and be not barred by any law.

Judgment

C. Nagappan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2013 in R.F.A. no.350 of 1997 passed by the High Court of Delhi in which the High Court allowed the Appeal by setting aside the order dated 7.8.1997 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi rejecting the plaint in Suit no.87 of 1994.

3. Briefly the facts are as follows :

The perpetual lease hold right in respect of the suit land as vacant plot was granted in favour of original lessee Col. A.N. Kapur by registered lease deed dated 16.4.1962 by the Government of India and he built two storied building with barsati and he sold his rights in the said property to the first defendant-Firm by registered sale deed dated 6.5.1963. The first defendant entered into a written agreement of sale dated 2.7.1973 in respect of the suit property with Smt. Ram Pyari. As per the terms of the agreement the possession of the suit property including the building was handed over to Smt. Ram Pyari Nagpal on the date of agreement itself. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed for 2.12.1973. Extension of time for execution of sale deed on the plea of obtaining permission to sell the property from the lessor was sought by the defendants by way of letters and the last of such extension was sought for six months w.e.f. August 1976. The sons of second defendant in July 1985 filed a suit seeking for declaration that the suit property is joint family property and the sale made by defendants in favour of plaintiffs be declared as null and void, was filed against defendants 2, 3 and the plaintiffs and on contest the same was dismissed on 5.4.1989. According to the plaintiffs the final cause of action accrued and arose after August 1991 when the defendants began hiding themselves and avoiding the plaintiffs and they filed the suit on 29.4.1994 seeking for a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 2.7.1973 against the defendants.

4. The defendants 1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 10.10.1996 seeking for rejection of the plaint as barred by the law of limitation. The Trial Court after hearing both sides by a speaking order held that the suit is patently barred by the law of limitation and allowed the application by rejecting the plaint. The plaintiffs preferred appeal in RFA no.350 of 1997 and the High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Trial Court and restored the suit to file. Aggrieved by the same the defendants have preferred the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in this suit.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants submitted that the suit patently appears to be barred by law of limitation by looking at the plaint averments and the High Court committed manifest error in arriving at a finding that the suit has to be tried. He relied on the decisions of this Court in Ahmadsahab Abdul Mulla (2)(Dead) by proposed Lrs. vs. Bibijan and ors. (2009)5 SCC 462 and Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee (2012) 8 SCC 706. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that although the agreement of sale dated 2.7.1973 had a fixed date for performance, the defendants by subsequent letters sought for extension for obtaining permission of lessor viz. Land & Development Office (L&DO) and the said permission was not taken till now and the High Court has rightly dismissed the claim for rejection of plaint. He relied on three decisions of this Court in S. Brahmanand and ors. vs. K.R. Muthugopal (Dead) and ors. (2005) 12 SCC 764, Panchanan Dhara and ors. vs. Monmatha Nath Maity (Dead) through Lrs. and anr. (2006) 5 SCC 340 and Niranjan Kumar and ors. vs. Dhyan Singh and anr. (1976) 4 SCC 89.

6. We consi