Court emphasized the impact of pandemic-related extensions on limitation periods, affirming that the suit, filed within the extended timeframe, was not barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.A. Mehd, learned advocate on record for the appellant and Mrs. Nisha M. Parikh, learned advocate on record for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is preferred at the instance of the original plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Viramgam in Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 2022. By the said impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge has partly allowed the application preferred by the present respondent-original defendant no.2 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, at Exh.14, consequently, leading to the rejection of the plaint and dismissal of the suit.

3. The brief facts as can be gathered from the record of the present appeal, are summarized as under:

3.1 It is the case of the original plaintiff that an agreement to sell was entered upon in respect of various parcels of agricultural lands of the ownership of the defendants situated in sim of Moje, Jalisana, Taluka-Mandal, District-Ahmedabad. Such agreement to sell was executed on 16.10.2015 before the notary which was entered vide serial no.737 of 2015 in presence of two independent witnesses. As per the agreement to sell, the possession of the said lands were handed over to the original plaintiff and the total amount of sale consideration was agreed for Rs.71 Lakhs. Out of the aforesaid, an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs in cash was paid to the defendants on 16.10.2015. As per the Clause-3 of the aforesaid agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed once the subject lands were converted into non-agricultural lands. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.55 Lakhs was paid towards the remaining sale consideration of agreement to sell and Rs.16 Lakhs were to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. No time line was specified in the agreement to sell. However, subsequently, in hand writing, a stipulation was made in the last line of paragraph-3, referring to the condition that the aforesaid amount was to be paid within a maximum period of six months, which according to the plaintiff, was not counter signed and was fraudulently entered subsequently into the agreement to sell.

3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had continued to be in actual possession of the subject lands right from the date of execution of agreement to sell and had remained in possession throughout. The NA permission came to be obtained on 17.07.2016 and the relevant entries in the revenue records came into effect during the period from 12.07.2016 to 28.07.2016. On 04.04.2017, the plaintiff has approached to the defendants thereby offering to pay the balance of amount of Rs.16 Lakhs by way of two cheques of Rs.8 Lakhs each to the defendants, however, the same was not accepted by the defendants. Later on 31.08.2017, the defendants have issued notice to the plaintiff thereby canceling the agreement to sell. On 07.11.2017, a public notice came to be issued by the defendants seeking title clearance certificate of the subject lands, whereby they disclosed their intention to sale few parcels of lands to one Ms. Parvatiben Chamanlal Patel. The plaintiff has objected to the aforesaid notice through their advocate. Such objections were again responded by the defendants through their lawyer by replying notice dated 22.02.2019. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the defendants were trying to illegally transfer the subject land by creating third party rights. On 04.05.2022, the defendants have administered threat to forcibly evict the plaintiff and to transfer the subject land by creating third party ri