1. Revision petition against rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
Babulal Mali S/o Hajari – Appellant
Versus
Afsar Qureshi S/o Abdul Rasid Qureshi – Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 358 of 2025
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ram Niwas Saini, Nirmala Kushwah
For the Appellants : Ram Niwas Saini, Nirmala Kushwah
The determination of whether a plaintiff was ready and willing to perform their part of a contract is a mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be decided at the stage of an application for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Specific Performance of Contract - Rejection of Plaint - Readiness and willingness of a plaintiff to perform their part of the contract is a mixed question of fact and law - Such questions cannot be adjudicated at the stage of considering an application for rejection of plaint - If the plaint discloses a cause of action and is within the prescribed period of limitation, it cannot be held to be barred by law. (Paras 8-9)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Revision - Scope of interference - Revisionary jurisdiction is warranted only if the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity. (Para 10)
(C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Where sufficient explanation is furnished for the delay in filing a petition, the delay may be condoned. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell was filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it failed to disclose a cause of action, was barred by Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, due to non-payment of the balance amount by the plaintiffs, and was barred by limitation. The lower court rejected the application, leading to the present revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action and was instituted within three years from the date of the agreement, meaning it was not barred by limitation. The court further found that the order passed by the lower court did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity.
Issues: Whether the plaint in a suit for specific performance is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the grounds of lack of cause of action, limitation, and the plaintiff's alleged failure to perform their part of the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the question of whether a plaintiff was ready and willing to perform their part of a contract is a mixed question of fact and law, and therefore cannot be decided at the stage of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- contract law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued plaint disclosed no cause of action, was barred by limitation and by Section 16 of Specific Relief Act due to non-payment of balance by stipulated date. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Plaint disclosed cause of action; readiness and willingness is mixed question of fact and law not determinable under Order 7 Rule 11; suit within limitation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, plaint rejection requires clear bar or no cause of action from plaint averments; factual issues like readiness and willingness cannot be decided therein. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
5. Civil revision petition dismissed; impugned order affirmed; stay and pending applications disposed of. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. What is the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting a plaint?
Rejection is only where plaint discloses no cause of action or is barred by law on its face; factual disputes like readiness and willingness cannot be considered at this stage. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
7. Can readiness and willingness to perform a contract be decided in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
No, readiness and willingness is a mixed question of fact and law, requiring trial evidence, and cannot be determined in a rejection application. (Para 8 )
8. When is a suit for specific performance barred by limitation under the Specific Relief Act?
A suit based on an agreement to sell is not barred when filed within three years from the agreement date, as limitation runs from the date stipulated for performance. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER :
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner with a delay of 139 days, for which an explanation has been furnished in the civil miscellaneous application (IA No. 476/2026) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, and the delay of 139 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.
3. While impugning the order dated 28.02.2025, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Gangapur City in Civil Suit No. 07/2024 titled as Afsar Qureshi & Ors. Vs. Babulal & Ors. whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was rejected; learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.03.2023, filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, as the plaint fails to properly disclose a cause of action.
4. He further submits that under the agreement dated 18.03.2023, the plaintiffs/respondents were required to make the balance payment up to 20.11.2023, which they did not, therefore the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents is barred by Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. He further submits that the present suit is also barred by limitation as the suit has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation; he therefore prays that the revision petition may kindly be allowed, and the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside, and appropriate orders be passed.
5. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material available on record, the copy of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, and the reply thereto.
6. It would be apt to reproduce Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which reads as under :-
"Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."
7. From the averments in the plaint, it is evident that the present suit for specific performance pertains to the agreement to sell dated 18.03.2023. In the plaint, the plaintiffs/respondents have averred that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the defendant delayed its execution.
8. Further, even otherwise, the fact as to whether the plaintiffs/respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, law, and is a mixed question of fact and law, and cannot be looked into at the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In para 9 of the plaint, they have disclosed a valid cause of action for filing the suit, and the suit has been instituted within three years from the date of the agreement.
9. Thus, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. In the totality of
