The court determined that applications under Order VII Rule 11 must allow parties to present evidence at trial, as disputed factual matters cannot be resolved at this stage.

ORDER :

V. Srishananda, J.

1. Heard Sri. Karan Khivesra, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. Sreekar for Sri. Sampath A., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

2.1 Defendants No.1 to 9 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the suit filed by the respondent in OS No.47/2022 for the relief of specific enforcement of the agreement to sell with the following prayer in respect of following immovable property:

PRAYER :

Wherefore, the plaintiffs prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the relief of Specific performance of contract;

a). Direct the defendants to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration amount of Rs 30,000/-(Thirty thousand rupees only).

b) If the defendants fail to execute the sale deed, appoint an court commissioner to execute the sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff, and to hand to over the possession to the plaintiff, with the cost of the defendants; or c). In the alternatively to direct the defendant to refund the earnest money of Rs. 10,40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of agreement till actual repayment, as damages.

d) For court cost and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in facts and circumstances of the case, within the interest of justice and

SCHEDULE

The landed property bearing old Sy No 299/15, now new Sy NO 299/18 P1 meas uring 2. acres 20 Guntas, assessed at Rs.3.12 Rs, and the same is situated at Dhanagur village, kasaba Hobli, Malavalli tq, Mandya Dt. the same his bounded on East;- Land of Kenchegowda, West ;- Maninayakana Kate, North; land of Plaintiff and South Land of Plaintiff.

2.2 Pursuant to the suit summons, plaintiffs laid the claim by contending that there was an agreement to sell in respect of the suit property on 16.12.2003 and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid as an advance.

2.3 There was a further payment of Rs.20,000/- towards the sale consideration and balance amount of Rs.30,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed.

2.4 Plaintiff further contended that though plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his portion of the contract, it is the defendants who postponed the execution of the sale deed on account of the ill-health of Sri. Abdul Rawoof, and a fresh sale agreement got executed on 07.08.2015 in a sum of Rs.10,70,000/- as the sale consideration.

2.5 It is further contented by the plaintiff that there was a denial to execute the sale deed and therefore suit came to be filed.

2.6 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance, disputed the suit agreement and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is hopelessly barred by time.

2.7 Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing detailed written objections.

2.8 Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of both sides and by impugned Order dismissed the application filed by the defendant inter alia holding in paragraphs No.12 to 15 as under:

12. The defendants contending that, the plaintiff created the agreement on banned stamp papers. Hence, the said agreement is illegal and he cannot claim right on the basis of said created agreement and the plaint brought by the plaintiff does not disclose cause of action. It is not the contention of d