The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the plaint as time-barred, emphasizing the necessity of timely enforcement of agreements and the court's duty to examine plaints for cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, has been filed by the original plaintiff on being aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2018 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 2018 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol whereby the civil court has refused to admit/accept the suit filed by the appellant.

2. Facts indicate that the appellant – plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 2018 on 20.01.2018. The suit was for a declaration that the agreement to sell entered into by the defendants no. 3.1 to 3.6 on 27.11.1980 be enforced by accepting an amount of Rs.64,400/- and the plaintiff thereby be given possession of the land. It was also prayed for by the plaintiff that the sale deed between the defendants no. 3.1 to 3.6 and 4 dated 08.10.2010 be declared as null and void.

2.1 The case of the plaintiff therefore in the plaint before the trial court was that the plaintiff was a registered cooperative society which had the objective of making residential homes. An agreement to sell on a Rs.10/- stamp paper was carried out between the plaintiff and one Ishwarbhai Shivrambhai Patel and it was agreed that an amount of Rs.1,74,200/- was paid being 75% of the consideration and in accordance with the conditions of the agreement to sell there was no time limit for entering into a sale deed. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the land was converted into an old tenure land in November 2007. On 29.09.2009 and thereafter on 05.07.2012, the defendants were requested to enter into a sale deed and the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.64,400/- and even after a final letter dated 02.02.2015, since the plaintiff came to know in December 2016 that a registered sale deed was already entered into between defendants no. 3.1 to 3.6 with the defendant no. 4 and on obtaining of the copy of the sale deed on 06.12.2016, and after issuance of a notice through their advocate on 04.09.2017, the present suit was filed.

2.2 The trial court on 20.01.2018 passed an order that the suit be posted for hearing on the question of limitation and be heard on 22.01.2018. On a preliminary hearing, the trial court by an order dated 21.03.2018 opined that the suit was for a declaration that an agreement to sell dated 27.11.1980 be enforced. The suit was filed on 20.01.2018. The land was already sold to the plaintiff to defendant no. 4 by a registered sale deed of 08.10.2010. The suit therefore prima facie was beyond the period of limitation. The suit therefore was not entitled to being registered and the trial court accordingly refused to register the suit. This order of the trial court is under challenge before us.

3. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the non suiting of the plaintiff in the manner that it was done is bad. Reading of the order, would indicate that the suit was dismissed without assigning cogent and substantial reasonings which amounts to denial of substantial justice.

3.1 Mr. Shah would submit that no reasons were assigned for dismissal of the suit. Perusal of the order of the trial court would indicate that based on two dates i.e. 27.11.1980 and 08.10.2010, the suit was refused to be registered which could not have been done.

3.2 Mr. Shah would further submit that what is evident from reading of the order is that when the suit was presented on 20.01.2018, the trial court made an endorsement of fixing a date for the hearing on the question of limitation. After hearing only the advocate for the plaintiff and based on a cursory perusal of the plaint, the trial court without asking for a notice and the perception of the other side dismissed the suit which it could not.

3.3 Mr. Shah, learned Senior Advocate would take us to Order IV of CPC and submit that institution of suits is a ministerial act. The suit is instituted by presentation of a plaint. It has to comply with the rules