The judgment emphasizes the application of contract law principles to determine the existence of a concluded contract and the consideration of the question of limitation as a mixed question of law and facts.

JUDGMENT :

1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties.

2. These two Revision Applications have been filed by defendants in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 for specific performance. While Civil Revision Application No.16/2022, is filed by the original defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8, Civil Revision Application No.17/2022, is filed by the original defendant Nos.5 and 9. In these Revision Applications, the applicants have challenged common order dated 20/01/2022, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warora, District Chandrapur on Exhs.39 and 57, i.e. the two applications filed for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Court below has rejected both the applications, holding that the suit filed by the respondent No.1 deserves to go to trial.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of the present Revision Applications are that on 03/02/2011, a document titled as “Sauda Chitthi”, was executed between the respondent No.1 with one Jodhrajji Kothari on the one hand and the applicants herein on the other. In these documents, it was stated that the applicant had agreed to sell specific area of land at Rs.40,00,000/- per acre, in respect of which amount of Rs.2,01,000/-, was received by the applicants and that an agreement in that regard would be executed on 17/02/2011, on which day, further amount to the extent of 25% of the consideration would be received by the applicants.

4. Subsequently, a document was executed between the said parties on 17/02/2011, titled as document for extension of time to execute agreement. In this document, reference was made to the earlier “Sauda Chitthi”, dated 03/02/2011 and it was stated that thereafter, when advertisement was published on 06/02/2011, in a newspaper as regards the said “Sauda Chitthi”, written objections were received on 11/02/2011, from some relatives of the applicants herein, due to which the parties had agreed for extending the time beyond 17/02/2011, for execution of the agreement. It was further stated that upon the objections being dealt with and settled, the agreement would be executed.

5. In May, 2018, the respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Suit No.11/2018, before the Court below for specific performance of the said document i.e. “Sauda Chitthi”, dated 03/02/2011, read with document dated 17/02/2011, for extension of time. It was claimed that in terms of the said documents, a concluded contract had come into existence between the parties. It was submitted that as per the document executed on 17/02/2011, for extension of time, it was clear that time was not the essence. As objections were raised in respect of the said transaction, the applicants had filed a suit against the objectors, resulting in a decree against them, which was then taken in appeal and the same is pending. It was claimed that when the respondent No.1 got knowledge of repudiation of the said contract by the applicants, that he was constrained to file the aforesaid suit. Apart from claiming specific performance in the aforesaid manner, the respondent No.1 claimed alternative relief of grant of decree of Rs.6,02,01,000/-, in his favour.

6. In the said suit, the applicants filed the said applications at Exhs.39 and 57, under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, for rejection of the plaint. While the applicants in C.R.A. No. 16/2022, claimed that there was no concluded contract and no specific performance could be granted of an agreement to enter into an agreement, the applicants in C.R.A. No.17/2022, additionally sought rejection of the plaint because they were not even signatories to the said documents, of which specific performance was claimed. In other words, the applicants claimed that there was no cause of action disclosed in the plaint, thereby justifying its rejection. It was further claimed by the applicants before the Court below that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation and on that