The court ruled that a civil suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the refusal to perform, reinforcing that delay and lack of sufficient pleading detail bar such claims.

JUDGMENT :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. The instant civil first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/ appellant under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, S.No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur [for short ‘the court below’] in Civil Suit No.45/2025, Kailash Chand v. Khemraj & Anr., whereby the court below while allowing the applications filed by defendants/respondents No.1 & 2 separately under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff/ appellant for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that plaintiff /appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction relating to the suit property Khasra no. 1014, measuring 3.0400 hector situated at village Roopahedi Kala, Tehsil Kotkhvda, District Jaipur & fully described in para no 1 of the plaint against the defendants. It was stated that respondent No. 1 agreed to sale the disputed property to plaintiff on 27.07.2007 for the consideration of Rs 16,30,000/. On the same date, in the presence of witnesses an agreement to sale was reduced in writing and complete sale consideration was paid to the respondent no. 1 and possession was also handed over by the respondent no. 1 to appellant. It was further stated that respondent no. 1 assured the appellant that whenever appellant will ask for the registration of the sale deed then respondent no. 1 will execute the sale deed in favour of appellant. Appellant is in the possession of the disputed property and appellant is doing farming since 27.07.20027 but on 10.03.2025 respondent no. 2 came to the appellant and stated that respondent no. 2 had purchased the disputed property from the respondent no. 1 and threatened the appellant that he would dispossess the appellant from the disputed property. It has been also averred that respondent no. 1 after receiving the full consideration sold the disputed property to the appellant and possession of the disputed property was also handed over to the appellant, therefore respondent no 1 had no right to sale the disputed property to respondent no. 2 and prayed that the suit for specific performance relating to the disputed agricultural land may be decreed. Injunction was also sought that defendants be restrained not to dispossess the plaintiff. It was also prayed that the sale deed dated 9.03.2025 registered on 11.03.2025 executed in favour of defendants no. 2 be declared as null & void.

3. The defendants/ respondents No. 1 & 2 moved two separate applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 26/3/2025 stating therein that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and no cause of action arose to file the present suit and further averred that the plaintiff has not paid proper court fees and prayed to dismiss the civil suit filed by the plaintiff.

4. After hearing the arguments on the applications filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 under order VII rule 11 CPC separately, the court below allowed the same vide order dated 29.03.2025.

5. Mr. Akash Gupta, counsel appearing for the plaintiff / appellant argued that the impugned order passed by the court below is against the facts as well as against the law. He submitted that the court below erred in not considering the legal position of law that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine the averments made in the plaint only and pleas taken by the defendants in its written statement would be irrelevant. He submitted that the court below di