1. The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the plaintiff in OS SR No.887 of 2018 on the file of the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at Vikarabad. The said suit was filed with the following prayer:

(i) Directing the defendant to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.3-30 guntas in Sy.No.4 and land admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.6 total admeasuring Ac.5-30 guntas situated at one Compact at Shaipur Village under the Limits of Tandur Municipality, Tandur Mandal, R.R.District (presently Vikarabad District), which is more fully described in the plaint schedule.

(ii) And in the event the defendant failed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property.

(iii) To award the costs of the suit, and

(iv) To any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiffs entitled to may also be awarded in the circumstances of the case and interest of justice.

2. The office of the trial Court raised an objection on 04.04.2018, which reads as under:

C.F.R.No. of 2018 dated 4-4-2018

This is a suit file under section 26 order 7 rule 1 and 2 C.P.C, suit for specific performance in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.4, extent Ac.3-30, in survey number 6 extent Ac.2-00 situated at Saipur village of Tandur Mandal as per the agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015

The agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015 is executed only for an extent of Ac.2-00 in survey number 6 situated at Shaipur village, but the plaintiff praying to this Court for directions to the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff to an extent of Ac.5-30 guntas in Sy.No.4 and 6.

How the suit is maintainable for claiming Ac.5-30 guntas against the agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015 filed in this suit.

Hence the Plaint is returned.

SFO

Returned. Time (7) days.

Thereupon, the petitioner-plaintiff re-submitted the suit stating as follows:

Objections complied herewith. Hence resubmitted.

4-4-2018

The suit is filed for specific performance as per the agreement of sale dated 17-2-2015 and as per clause No.4 of agreement of sale he agreed to sale his other property covered with Memorandum of Conformation of Oral Hiba dated February 2015 and executed on 18/04/2015 for remaining land of the defendant.

Hence the suit is maintainable as per the agreement and receipt.

Hence resubmitting.

Sd/-

04/04/2018

3. The office however opined that the objections required to be heard on two points:

(1) The point of limitation

(2) How the suit for the entire schedule of property Ac.5-30 guntas is maintainable, when the Agreement of Sale is for Ac.2-00 guntas and another receipt is for Ac.2-00 guntas.

The matter was accordingly directed to be posted for hearing on the Bench and, by order dated 12.04.2018, the trial Court returned the suit stating as under:

Heard the counsel for plff, the agreement of sale is executed to an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.6, and clause no.4 in the agreement of is pertaining to remaining portion of his land i.e. 3.30 gts in Sy.No.4 and the 1st party assures second party after completion of sale transaction under agreement of sale dt.17/2/2015 only the future transaction takes place. Therefore suit is not maintainable to the entire extent of Ac.5.20 gts and it is maintainable to extent of Ac.2.00 only in Sy.No.6 only. Hence counsel is directed to restricted his prayer to the extent of two acres only.

4. Aggrieved by the direction to restrict his suit prayer as a condition precedent for entertainment of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. Section 26 CPC deals with institution of suits and states that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint and that, in every plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit. Order