IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a suit for specific performance is barred by limitation if filed beyond the prescribed period, as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) seeking revision of the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup, Amingaon (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Misc. (J) Case No.34/2023 arising out of Title Suit No.116/2022 wherein the application filed by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code for rejection of the plaint was rejected.

2. To decide the legality and validity of the said order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that the instant proceedings relates rejecting an application seeking rejection of the plaint. Considering the scope, this Court would therefore limit itself as to whether from a perusal of the plaint, it discloses that the same is barred by any provisions of law.

3. A perusal of the plaint in Title Suit No.116/2022 reveals that the Plaintiff/Respondent herein had entered into an agreement with one Subodh Chandra Kalita (since deceased) who was the husband of the Defendant No.1 in the said suit and the father of the Defendant Nos. 2 to 6. The said agreement was registered bearing Deed No.4972/2006 on 22.05.2006 for sale of 2 Kathas of land covered by Dag No.934 of K.P. Patta No.410 for a consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-out of which Rs.1,00,000/-was paid as advance by the Respondent herein to the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6.

4. During the lifetime of Late Subodh Chandra Kalita, it has been alleged in the plaint that a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/-was paid by cheque on 14.11.2007 and another additional amount of Rs.50,000/-was paid in cash. Under such circumstances, it was the case of the plaintiff that only Rs.4,50,000/-remained to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registration of Sale Deed. Unfortunately, the said Subodh Chandra Kalita expired on 22.06.2009.

5. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff thereupon approached the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to execute the Deed of Sale but the Defendant No.1 expressed that there was some civil litigations pending regarding the land including the suit land during the lifetime of Late Subodh Chandra Kalita and they would execute the registered Sale Deed as soon as the litigations ended. The plaintiff thereupon made enquiry and found out that there was a Title Suit No.227/2001 instituted by Late Subodh Chandra Kalita against one Shri Akhil Kalita and others which was decreed in favour of the legal heirs of Late Subodh Chandra Kalita and the matter was finally compromised in appeal in favour of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6. No date whatsoever was mentioned in the plaint.

6. Be that as it may, it is mentioned in paragraph No.9 of the plaint that the plaintiff again approached the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 for execution of the registered Sale Deed in respect to the suit land by accepting the balance amount of the said consideration. It was alleged that the Defendants without executing the Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff tried to sell the entire land covered by Dag No.934 and 1053 including the suit land to some other person and prayed for sale permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup at Amingaon. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff had filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon with a prayer not to allow the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to sell the suit land which Late Subodh Chandra Kalita entered into the agreement with the plaintiff. The said application was registered as KRM 36/15 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon. It is however relevant to take note of that there is no date mentioned as to when the plaintiff approached the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 or when the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 wanted to sell the entire plot of land including the suit land.

7. Be that as it may, it is stated in the plaint that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner after considering the matter vi