The court ruled that issues of limitation and contractual validity arising from disputed facts cannot be decisively adjudicated at the stage of rejecting a plaint, necessitating a trial based on evidence.

Order :

AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J.

1. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:-

“It, is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to make an order to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 17-09-2025 (Annexure A-1) and reject the plaint filed by the plaintiff in relating to Civil Suit No. 13-A/2024, in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 13A/2024 before the learned concerned Civil Court seeking specific performance of contract, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 333/5, admeasuring 2.023 hectares, recorded in the name of Late Natthuram, whose legal heirs are arrayed as defendants No.1 to 4 herein.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, that he and Late Natthuram Chandrakar were real brothers, and in the year 1985 a partition had taken place amongst them and their other siblings, pursuant to which both came into possession of their respective shares. As per the said partition, the plaintiff received half share from Khasra No. 333/1, measuring 4.047 hectares, to the extent of 2.024 hectares, whereas Late Natthuram received the remaining half share, i.e., 2.03 hectares. However, the revenue records continued to reflect their joint names.

4. It is further averred that prior to his death, Late Natthuram, being in need of money, intended to sell 1 acre of his share of land, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.55,000/-. Accordingly, on 23.04.1998 a sale agreement was executed by Late Natthuram in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of execution of the said agreement, Khasra No. 333/1 was mistakenly mentioned as Khasra No. 333/3, which was later rectified as Khasra No. 331/1. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the said 1 acre of land and carrying out agricultural operations thereon.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that despite repeated requests to record his name in the revenue records, Late Natthuram did not take steps to do so. Instead, the legal representatives of Late Natthuram (defendants No.1 to 4) instituted a Revenue Case before the Tehsildar, Kunda seeking partition, wherein the plaintiff was proceeded ex parte. Meanwhile, Late Natthuram agreed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and to effect partition of 1 acre from Khasra No. 333/1. An order was accordingly passed on 28.07.2017. However, since no Fard Batwara was prepared, the order was challenged before the SDO, who set it aside. The defendants thereafter preferred a Second Appeal before the Commissioner, Durg, who, after following due procedure, passed an order effecting partition of Khasra No. 333/1 measuring 4.047 hectares and held that Late Natthuram was entitled to half share, i.e., 2.03 hectares, directing that part of the land be recorded as Khasra No. 333/5.

6. Subsequently, when the plaintiff requested Late Natthuram to execute a registered sale deed for the agreed 1 acre of land, he refused to do so. During this period, Late Natthuram passed away on 14.07.2021. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present civil suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 23.04.1998 for a consideration of Rs.57,000/-, along with reliefs of possession and permanent injunction.

7. After issuance of notices, defendants No.1 to 4 appeared and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejectio